Bullet found in man’s ashes saves another from prison

Source: Times of India dated 20.12.2018

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:
A bullet killed a man, but recovery of a bullet from the ashes after cremation of the deceased saved another from serving a life term in prison. The Supreme Court acquitted one Wasif Haider of murder charge after finding glaring discrepancies in the police story about the bullet. The police chargesheet against Haider had relied on the postmortem report which said there were two bullet wounds on the deceased’s body, one caused by entry of the bullet and the other by its exit.

However, when the body was cremated, a bullet was recovered from the ashes, casting serious doubt on the police theory. A bench of Justices N V Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar said, “It is surprising that the postmortem report describes that there were two wounds in the body of the deceased, one being the entry and the other being the exit wound. Allegedly, a bullet was recovered from the ashes of the deceased.

“The forensic laboratory report shows that this bullet was charred and blistered. This recovery... is irreconcilable with the postmortem report which states an exit wound, implying that the bullet had left the body. The aforesaid fact raises a suspicion on both the postmortem report and the forensic laboratory report as they are incompatible with each other.”

The SC said the bullet that was recovered from the ashes could not be proved to have been fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from Haider. “Even the recovery of the pistol is doubtful. While prosecution case reveals that one .38 bore Colt pistol was recovered from the possession of Haider, evidence of police officer Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi reveals that a .32 bore Colt pistol was recovered pursuant to his arrest. The police also contradicted itself by claiming that two pistols of .38 bore were recovered from Haider,” said Justice Ramana.

The trial court had convicted Haider of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. But Allahabad High Court acquitted him, which was challenged in the SC by the state government.

‘Justice’ is Webster’s word of the year

Source: Times of India dated 18.12.18

Racial justice. Obstruction of justice. Social justice. The Justice Department. Merriam-Webster has chosen “justice” as its 2018 word of the year, driven by the churning news cycle over months and months.

The word follows “toxic”, picked by Oxford Dictionaries, and “misinformation”, plucked by Dictonary.com.

Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor at large, said on Monday that “justice” consistently bubbled into the top 20 or 30 lookups on the company’s website, spiking at times due to specific events but also skating close to the surface for much of the year.

While it’s a common word people likely know how to spell and use correctly, Sokolowski pointed to other reasons that drive search traffic. Among them is an attempt to focus a train of thought around a philosophical problem, or to seek motivation.

The designation for “justice” came soon after President Trump’s ex-fixer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes that included arranging the payment of hush money to conceal his boss’ alleged sexual affairs. He told a judge he agreed to cover up Trump’s “dirty deeds” out of “blind loyalty”.

Earlier in the year, Kim Kardashian visited the White House twice to discuss prison and sentencing reform with Trump. Sentencing for drug crimes, a loosening of cannabis laws, a Tesla probe, the Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign: Justice will remain top of mind into the new year.

Often, when Trump tweets about the department of justice, he uses simply “Justice”. On August 1, when he tweeted his wish for then-AG Jeff Sessions to stop the Mueller probe, searches spiked significantly. Searches for “justice” throughout the year, when compared to 2017, were up 74% on the site , Sokolowski said.

Statute makes space for diverse identities: Justice Chandrachud

Source: Times of India dated 18.12.18
Swati.Deshpande@timesgroup.com

Mumbai:

“Our Constitution works even for those who may not believe in it,” said Supreme Court judge D Y Chandrachud, underlining the significance of the Constitution in a democracy.

He elaborated his point with an anecdote of a scientist who told a friend how a horseshoe on his door worked even though he wasn’t superstitious.

Justice Chandrachud’s observations, made while delivering the Justice KT Desai Memorial lecture at the central court hall of Bombay HC on Monday, drew applause from the distinguished gathering of high court judges, both present and past, as well as former SC judges and lawyers.

Speaking on a subject close to his heart, he went on to add inclusivity was one of the mainstays of the Constitution. He said while delivering the verdict on section 377, he believed “we” in “We the people” was an “ever inclusive and ever expansive we.”

Globalisation has meant a shift in definitions of identity and citizenship. “While state nationalism remains a strong force, many other modes of connection are shaping people’s sense of personal and collective identities.”

He added the burgeoning of multi-faceted and intersectional identities, accompanied by an acknowledgment of the inherent fluidity in various identities, lends to the requirement of a Constitution that keeps pace with these identities.

Increasingly so, the Constitution is recognising these diverse identities. An important example is the recognition of different gender and sexual identities. While the break from a heteronormative framework has been gradual, the courts have played an important role in recognising the autonomy of individuals within the Constitution to determine their orientation as well as gender identity, he said.

Juvenile board must try 16-18 year olds if not involved in heinous crimes: HC

Source: Times of India dated 18.12.18
Shibu.thomas@timesgroup.com
Mumbai:

A child between 16 and 18 years who has not committed a heinous offence cannot be tried as an adult by a children’s court, the Bombay high court has clarified.

Justice Mridula Bhatkar struck down an order of the Juvenile Justice Board allowing the case of three 17-yearolds charged with attempt to murder to be transferred to the children’s court. The court pointed out that the offence of attempt to murder was not a heinous offence as the punishment prescribes a maximum jail term of 10 years and no minimum imprisonment.

Under amendments brought to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, a minor between 16 and 18 can be tried as an adult if a heinous crime has been committed. The special law defines heinous offence as any crime with a minimum punishment of seven years in jail.

If a minor is in conflict with the law or is below 16 and has committed a heinous offence, such cases are to be decided by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The board, if it holds the child guilty, can place him in a special home for a maximum period of three years.

However if a minor between 16 and 18 has committed a heinous crime, the board should send such children for a preliminary assessment by a panel of psychologists. If the panel concludes that the child has the capacity to commit the crime and understand the consequences of the alleged offence, the board can transfer the case to the children’s court. On being held guilty, the children’s court can sentence the accused to a “place of safety” till he turns 21 and he will serve the remainder of his term in an adult prison.

In the present case, the board sent the 17-year-olds for preliminary assessment and ordered for the case to be transferred to the children’s court. The lawyers for the accused argued that if they are tried by the children’s court, grave prejudice would be caused to them in view of the stricter punishments.

The HC agreed that attempt to murder does not qualify as a heinous offence. “There was no need to refer to the matter or conducting any preliminary assessment with regard to the mental or physical capacity to commit such offences or ability to understand consequences of the offences,” said the high court.