Fish farm owner found dead in river in Vaikom
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The body was found with four bricks tied to the neck and six bricks each on each foot.
Vipin, who reached the farm by around 9pm in his own vehicle on Sunday, went missing on Monday morning. At the farm, he used to sleep in a temporary shed. Vipin told his family that he would come home to drop his daughter at the bus station as she was leaving for Thiruvananthapuram. When Vipin did not return home on Monday, his family lodged a complaint with the police.
The mattress and the table in the shed where Vipin was sleeping were found overturned.
However, there was no sign of any tussle inside the shed.
The dog squad and fingerprint experts reached the spot and inspected it, but no significant evidence was found. The police later checked the CCTV footage in the area. They found two vehicles and identified them as belonging to the residents of the area. Vipin was facing a huge financial liability due to floods and Covid. His family members told the police that Vipin could not go far without as he had difficulty in walking.
The police are also investigating the possibility of suicide. Call records on his mobile phone are also being examined.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Setback to lenders: NCLT replaces RP in Anil Ambani's loan guarantee case
NEW DELHI: In a setback to lenders, the National Company Law Tribunal has removed Jitender Kothari as the resolution professional (RP) in an insolvency case related to Anil Ambani 's personal guarantee to SBI for a loan to Reliance Communications . NCLT appointed Prashant Jain as the new RP. In Sept 2016, Ambani had given a personal guarantee for a Rs 1,385-crore loan, which was retrospectively classified as an NPA effective late Aug 2016. Kothari was appointed RP in Aug 2020. A few days after his appointment, the RP sought multiple details from Ambani, including details of a case in a British court. The insolvency action had been challenged in Delhi HC and the SC. In May 2021, the RP filed his report in NCLT, recommending admission of company petition for insolvency resolution despite Ambani's lawyer seeking more time, citing restricted mobility due to Covid. A few days later, Ambani's lawyer wrote that the RP can only seek information from SBI. Meanwhile, the businessman's writ petition in SC was tagged along with one Surendra Jiwarajka, which was finally decided in Nov 2023. Ambani has accused the RP of "acting in undue haste and denying him fair and proper opportunity" to provide information. Besides, the RP is accused of exceeding the mandate under IBC in seeking "unrelated information". The RP denied the charges and SBI supported it, while arguing that the matter had been pending with NCLT for a long time and the case was being delayed. In its order on July 15, the benchsaid that in light of Covid-related disruptions, Ambani should have been given "a fair opportunity" to provide information to the resolution professional. "Instead, we note that the RP didn't even wait for adjudication of his application pending before this Tribunal seeking relaxation of 10 days' timeline and a cross application of the applicant before this Tribunal requiring more time in view of Covid restrictions. " "Though, we do not find any negligence or explicit bias on part of the RP in this case, however, we are of considered view since the insolvency resolution process after commencement has to be run in close coordination of debtor and RP," it said. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
When terror walks free: 7/11 verdict and crisis of India's criminal justice system
Nearly two decades after the deadly 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, which killed over 180 people and injured more than 800, the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit all 12 convicted accused has sent shockwaves across the country. While judicial independence and the rule of law are the pillars of our democracy, the complete collapse of the criminal justice system in a case of this magnitude raises grave questions—not just legal, but also national September 2015, after a nine-year-long investigation led by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court convicted 12 of 13 accused in connection with the coordinated bombings. Five were sentenced to death, seven to life imprisonment, and one was acquitted. One of the death-row convicts later died in 2021 in jail due to COVID-19. However, on 21st July 2025, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted all 12, including the Hurdles Then, Judicial Acquittal NowThe court's observations on the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, delayed identifications, lack of corroborative material, and doubts over the voluntariness of confessions are rooted in procedural rigour. It is worth noting that the special court found sufficient ground for conviction based on the same evidence. To summarily discard all evidence and confession-based inputs is not only unfair to the victims and the investigation but also potentially dangerous. These were not petty offenders; they were individuals linked to known terrorist organisations. To assume they will peacefully reintegrate into society is nave. On the contrary, there is a very real and chilling possibility that their release could enable them to re-establish ties with militant networks and plot future attacks under the cover of judicial Trust, Empowering TerrorThis verdict impacts more than just victims' families or police credibility; it undermines public trust in the entire criminal justice system. When justice appears denied in major terror cases, people begin to lose faith in due process, leading to calls for media trials or even extrajudicial actions, as seen in the Hyderabad rapists encounter case. This risks pushing India toward a vigilante mindset where emotion overrides judgments also weaken India's global image as a nation tough on terrorism. Actions like the Balakot strikes, Operation Sindoor, and strong declarations such as 'Any act of terror will be considered an act of war' projected strength, but the 7/11 acquittals create an impression, both domestically and abroad, that India remains a 'soft state' on agencies like the ATS and NIA, the outcome is deeply demoralizing. Years of high-risk investigation and sacrifice feel dismissed, potentially deterring future action. At a time of rising global threats, India cannot afford a justice system that weakens morale and signals impunity to its and National Security Must CoexistThis is not an argument for abandoning due process or fair trial, but a call for judicial sensitivity in cases involving national trauma and security threats. A purely procedural lens risks undermining public trust, morale, and the Supreme Court staying the Bombay High Court's acquittal in the 7/11 case on July 24, 2025, it must now re-examine the matter with a security-conscious approach. Mass-casualty terrorism cannot go unpunished, nor can suspects be freed only to rejoin militant acquittals are a wake-up call for systemic reform across investigation, prosecution, and colonial-era criminal justice system, rooted in rigid procedures and outdated evidentiary norms, is ill-equipped for modern terrorism. Terrorists exploit encrypted tools and leave little evidence, yet the system still demands traditional proofs like eyewitnesses years protecting civil liberties remains vital, blind adherence to outdated norms must not compromise justice in high-risk national security Must IntrospectThe recent acquittal compels the judiciary to engage in serious self-reflection. How can two courts, examining the same evidence, arrive at such radically different outcomes—one imposing death sentences, the other granting complete acquittals? This stark divergence raises troubling concerns about the consistency, objectivity and internal coherence of our justice delivery system. Was the evidence so ambiguous that it led to a miscarriage of justice at the trial stage? Or does this contradiction reflect deeper issues, such as subjective judicial interpretation or the sway of elite legal advocacy?The involvement of Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and now Senior Advocate, in representing two terror-accused adds complexity. While fair legal representation is a fundamental right, the participation of a former top judge raises ethical and institutional concerns. His stature could unintentionally influence judicial peers or affect how proceedings are perceived. Even without legal impropriety, such involvement in high-stakes cases calls for regulatory scrutiny toensure judicial processes remain above reproach, both in law and in public perception, especially in matters of national Reforms NeededTo protect India's internal security and ensure justice in terrorism cases, judicial reform and institutional introspection are essential. The criminal justice system comprises of the police, prosecution, and judiciary. While courts often question the competence of investigators and prosecutors, they too must be held accountable, especially in high-stakes terror trials and sensitive criminal investigative agencies like the ATS and state intelligence wings, though rooted in colonial-era policing, have tried to keep pace with changing technology like electronic surveillance, cyber forensics, and multilingual intelligence, the judiciary must now catch up to ensure these technological advances result in effective convictions and timely like the UAPA, MCOCA, and CrPC are evolving to address encrypted data, foreign handlers, and proxy warfare. Yet, judicial delays, inconsistent rulings, and external influences continue to hinder must include specialized training not only for investigators but also for judges and prosecutors in national security law to help balance civil liberties with national interest. Simultaneously strengthening witness protection and forensic protocols is equally crucial. Eyewitnesses mostly succumb to threats even from big criminals, not to mention terrorists having support from our neighbouring country. While the investigative and legal frameworks are adapting, the judiciary must evolve in parallel to preserve coherence, credibility, and integrity in India's fight against isn't about overriding judicial independence, but aligning it with modern security needs. Justice cannot function in isolation, blind to its consequences. The 7/11 acquittals are more than a legal outcome; they test India's institutional the Supreme Court staying the High Court's order, it must now revisit the case not just in legal terms, but in the spirit of national accountability. Can a system that finds no one guilty for Mumbai's deadliest train attack truly claim to have delivered justice?India must ensure its justice system is not only fair and impartial, but alert, modern, and strong enough to face any challenge, including terrorism. The time to introspect is now.(Ashok Kumar is a Retd IPS officer and former DGP of Uttarakhand. He is presently serving as Vice Chancellor of the Sports University of Haryana, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana.)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Scroll.in
Reimagining family: A queer demand
As discussions on non-heterosexual relationships have become increasingly visible in India, and while the claim of LGBTQ+ marriage was thrust into the spotlight from some quarters in the last two years, another notion has also been raised as perhaps the most inclusive option available for LGBTQ+ people in their multiple lived realities – the 'chosen family'. Over time, the heterosexual family has been accepted as the primary site of social reproduction. Indeed, it is the structural template and norm for social organising, control and conduct. It is considered the legitimate, 'typical' framework in the general imagination. A typical family is considered to be an exclusive social unit within which members who are related to each other by blood or marriage co-reside. Broadly, they are either nuclear or extended/joint in composition, and for the most part, reinforce a patriarchal hierarchy. Given its dominance in the imagining of social order, the family is the fulcrum around which individuals within it are supposed to receive protection by the law. And, in this imagination, the family is too frequently quick to demarcate who it is not for: members who are victims of abusive relatives or partners, persons with disabilities, the elderly, non-normative women, and the queer. In this regard, the family also holds a multitude of realities and embodies startling contradictions. For instance, it is, on the one hand, an infrastructure of support and care. On the other hand, it is a vastly overlooked site of violence. Family violence There are numerous, almost daily reports of horrific natal or marital family violence: a six-year- old murdered by his father, a woman murdered by her father, another woman beating her six-year-old niece to death, a man killing his wife after a heated argument, a woman being brutalised and killed by her father-in-law. Each of these reports reveal a nexus to the stifling nature of the typical family. Even when understood as an infrastructure of care, the family is often exclusively for those who abide by prescribed gender norms. All too often, those who are seen to defy gender or other family-specific norms are made outcasts, disowned and even brutalised. It is these marginalised, non-normative persons who are ousted from the family, under the guise of preservation of its sanctity, through violence exhibited as confinement, beatings, murders and rape. As such, several non-normative persons are cast out. Some are fortunate to find or forge chosen families, which become their safe havens, often life-saving for many. In India, individuals from LGBTQ+ communities specifically face intense violence at the hands of their natal families, so much so that the High Court of Kerala recently recognised them as 'sites of abuse' for LGBTQ+ persons. This violence was amplified during the Covid-19 pandemic; one individual's family attempted to immolate them. As a result, several LGBTQ+ youth were forced to flee from their natal families during the nationwide lockdown and seek refuge in shelter homes. There, too, they were not always able to find safety. The only safe spaces were their chosen families. Yet, due to the lack of legal recognition, chosen family members were unable to make decisions on behalf of each other in medical emergencies during the pandemic. This is a reality that has long existed and persists today. Far-fetched claim? While the claim for legal recognition of chosen families has been most visibly articulated by queer-trans communities, it is not a claim that is exclusive to them. In reality, it serves the needs of all non-normative people – persons with disabilities, the elderly, victims of abuse, and non-normative women. What is the substance of the claim? In essence, it asks: if a network of persons provides the same care, support and safety as a conventional family is supposed to, why can it not be referred to as one, and indeed, recognised in law as a family? Is this far-fetched? Indeed not. Examples exist of laws at the national, state and municipal levels that envision a far more inclusive notion of family than has been conventionally defined. A salient example of this is a law which establishes that (i) two or more persons who (ii) 'consider themselves to be a family' but are (iii) 'not related by blood closer than would bar marriage' and are (iv) 'in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment' can form and register a domestic partnership. Mutual support, specifically, is envisaged as each person's contribution 'in some fashion, not necessarily equally or financially, to the maintenance and support of the domestic partnership'. Such a vision recognises these relationships as equal to a family (and domestic partners equal to spouses) by granting them equal rights in nearly every regard: visitation in healthcare and correctional facilities, guardianship rights in relation to schools, employment health and other fringe benefits, medical insurance, and parental leave. Love, care and support Laws such as this recognise that the experience of a family – of love, care and support – is not and should not be confined to a singular idea of the family. The claim for legal recognition of chosen families is not intended to dismantle the traditional family, but instead to expand the ambit of the family beyond its current imagination so that the concerns of the most marginal amongst us are also addressed. In doing so, not just those in coupledom, but all people who live in non-normative arrangements – LGBTQ+ and beyond – can find a satisfactory response in the law. To be sure, such a broadened imagination of the family is not unheard of in India – customary practices such as the maitri karar were used by different- and same-sex couples alike to enter into live-in relationships, while structures like hijra gharanas also posit a unique family dynamic. It has been a year since the Indian government consulted members of the LGBTQ+ community to seek their views on what law reform was essential to address their concerns. Some of us canvassed for the chosen family to be recognised in Indian law as a measure that would go a long way in supporting the queer community in all its diversity. Hopefully, this submission has reached the High-Powered Committee established pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. And even more hopefully, it finds clear amplification in the committee's final report and concerted action by the powers that be. If not, only a sliver of our community's needs will be met.
