Court lambastes DP for withdrawing rape case "for public good"
- David Headley connects the dots: Hafiz Saeed, ISI, failed Mumbai attacks
- David Headley: Travelled to India 8 times, changed name for passport
- Rs 1.14 lakh crore of bad debts: The great government bank write-off
- Caste came up in 3 suicide probes at Hyderabad University
- Uttar Pradesh has been turned into 'Islamic state': Sena mouthpiece on Ghulam Ali concert
Amid the widespread outrage over the gangrape of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus, a Delhi court has pulled up police for seeking withdrawal "in public interest" a case of rape, lodged against a man by his landlady.
Lambasting the prosecution for its plea to withdraw the case, Additional Sessions Judge Savita Rao ordered Delhi chief secretary to ascertain as to who recommended the withdrawal.
Accused Tarkeshwar Yadav and others had been charge sheeted by the police under section 376 (rape), 511 (punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life), 354 (criminal assault on woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC on allegation that Yadav had attempted to rape his landlady whereas accused Shivaji and Vidya Sagar had robbed her.
During their attempt to rape the woman, the accused had also beaten up the victim and her sons who came to her rescue when she raised the alarm.
The prosecution, however, later told the court that no offence under section 376 and 511 IPC is made out and sought to withdraw the case "after being satisfied that the public interest will be served by withdrawal of the case from prosecution."
The judge, however, observed, "the prosecution has failed to answer as to which public good will be served by withdrawal of the prosecution."
"Rather with the withdrawal of the prosecution, a wrong message would definitely be conveyed to the society whereby public good itself would be compromised and thwarted."
"The chief secretary, Delhi is hereby called upon to hold a proper and discreet inquiry under intimation of this court and to take steps against anyone, whosoever it may be, who recommended this withdrawal," the ASJ said.
The court also took note of the correspondence between the Director of Prosecution and the Additional Public Prosecutor and noted that "the public prosecutor had agreed with APP's opinion that the case was not fit for withdrawal but it seems that the matter was subsequently discussed with the Director of Prosecution and it was opined that the case was fit for withdrawal."
- We have turned our back to the intense food and drinking water distress
- Strategies anchored in incubators fail to foster entrepreneurship
- Existing regime of film censorship is unconstitutional
- Section 377: A right to love
- PM Oli has been lucky, but his political survival looks uncertain
- Across the aisle- MGNREGA: Making a meal of words