&w=3840&q=100)
HC flags rise in deaths on Mumbai local, calls for preventive measures
The court suggested installing automatic door-closing mechanisms in Mumbai local trains to prevent commuters from falling off, but insisted this was an advice purely from a "layman" perspective and Railway expert views were needed on the issue. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne urged authorities to take measures to ensure tragic incidents don't occur on the Mumbai suburban network in the future. Citing an affidavit filed by the Railways, the court noted that in 2024 alone over 3,588 fatalities happened on local trains (due to various accidents on the suburban network), which means on an average ten Mumbaikars die everyday.
"This is an alarming situation. Though you have projected that there was a reduction (in casualties) of 49 per cent (compared to previous years)," the court added. The division bench made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) related to deaths of commuters in accidents on Mumbai's suburban network, considered the city's lifeline. Taking note of the June 9 incident where five passengers died and eight others sustained injuries after falling off a crowded local train near Mumbra station in adjoining Thane district, the court observed measures taken by authorities to stop such untoward incidents were not sufficient. The court suggested they (trains) should be equipped with automatic doors (currently they have open doors).
The bench, however, was quick to add that it was a "layman" suggestion and they were not an expert on Railway safety. The Railways informed the bench that they have set up a multi-disciplinary committee to examine the cause of the Mumbra incident and waiting for its report. The panel will give recommendations and suggestions for avoiding such untoward incidents in the future. The court directed the Railways to place on record suggestions made by the committee, along with timeline for their implementation. The committee should be open to including the suggestions made by the petitioner (a commuter) for avoiding reoccurrence of such incidents. Besides the disciplinary panel, a high-level monitoring committee has been set up separately and it is working towards a "zero death mission". Based on its suggestions, a number of steps has already been taken, the Railways told the court. One of the steps included building walls and fences between Rail tracks to stop commuters from crossing over. Also, stalls have been shifted from some platforms on suburban stations to avoid overcrowding, it said. The matter will be next heard on July 14.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
9 hours ago
- India Today
Bail is rule, but not in child abuse cases: Man denied bail for sodomising minor
The Bombay High Court, while holding that 'bail is indeed the rule and jail is the exception,' stated that this general principle must be balanced against the special circumstances of each case, particularly when dealing with offences against children. The court therefore refused to grant bail to a 25-year-old student accused of sodomising a minor at Aksa beach, Mumbai last bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed that while every accused person has a fundamental right to liberty, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the larger interests of justice, public order, and the protection of victims, especially when the victims are minors.'The POCSO Act represents the legislative intent to provide stringent protection to children from sexual offences. Courts, as guardians of justice, have a solemn duty to ensure that this legislative objective is not defeated by a liberal approach to bail in such serious cases," he stated. The Court further observed that 'the trauma suffered by child victims in sexual assault cases is immense and long-lasting.""The criminal justice system must be sensitive to their plight and ensure that they are not subjected to further victimization through intimidation or influence by the accused persons," he added.A 17-year-old boy from suburban Mumbai regularly went fishing with his friend and was doing so on July 31, 2024. After catching fish, both friends were sitting on the beach when, around 6:30 pm, a man approached them and asked them to come near the bushes, claiming something had happened there. The boys were hesitant, but when the man persisted, the victim went to take a they reached the bushes, the accused held him, forcibly removed his clothes, and committed unnatural carnal intercourse with him against his will and without his the victim began to cry then the accused revealed his identity as Mayur Wankhede and callously told the victim that he was free to inform anyone about what had transpired. The victim and his friend then went to register an FIR and the accused was arrested. After investigation, a charge sheet was also going through the evidence, the bench observed, 'there exists sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The medical examination report constitutes crucial evidence in the present case. The report clearly indicates signs of recent forceful penetration and states that sexual violence cannot be ruled out.'advertisementThe bench further ruled, 'This Court is mindful of the fact that the present case involves allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Pocso Act), which is a special legislation enacted to provide protection to children from sexual offences. The Pocso Act has been enacted with the noble objective of safeguarding the interests of children and ensuring their protection from sexual exploitation and abuse.''The nature of the alleged offence is such that it not only causes physical harm to the victim but also inflicts severe psychological trauma that may have long-lasting effects on the minor victim. Courts have consistently held that while considering bail in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the traumatic effect on the victim and the possibility of the accused influencing or intimidating the victim or witnesses must be given due consideration," the bench court noted that the victim is a minor and there exists a reasonable apprehension that if released on bail, the applicant may attempt to influence the victim or other witnesses."The victim, being a minor, is particularly vulnerable to intimidation or pressure, which could seriously compromise the fair trial of the case. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, but the trial is yet to commence. During this crucial period, it is essential to ensure that the victim and witnesses are protected from any potential influence or harassment by the accused," the bench observed.- Ends advertisement
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Court orders FIR within a week in custodial death case of 35-year-old law student
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government and the Mondha Police Station in Parbhani to register a First Information Report (FIR) within one week in connection with the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Somnath a final-year law student, died on December 15, 2024, while in judicial bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh said they were 'constrained' to pass the direction and stressed that the investigation must be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of The directive came while hearing a petition filed by Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, the mother of the to the petitioner, Somnath was one of around 50 individuals detained after violence broke out during a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024. The unrest was reportedly a reaction to the vandalism of a replica of the Indian Constitution near a statue of Dr. B R Ambedkar outside the Parbhani Railway Station. That vandalism had occurred a day earlier during a protest organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha against alleged atrocities on Hindus in who was reportedly carrying a copy of the Constitution at the time of his arrest, was first kept in police custody until December 14 and later sent to judicial custody. He died early the next morning, allegedly after complaining of chest pain. However, his family claims he had been severely beaten in custody.A postmortem report cited 'shock following multiple injuries' as the probable cause of death, noting 24 injuries, including contusions and abrasions inflicted between a few hours to four days before her petition, Vijayabai Suryawanshi alleged that she was taken to meet a senior police officer who offered her Rs 50 lakh and jobs for her other sons in the police department if she refrained from filing a complaint. The family was also reportedly urged to perform Somnath's last rites in their village in Latur rather than in Prakash Ambedkar, appearing for the family, argued that although a judicial inquiry had been conducted, no FIR had been filed, and the law lacks clarity on the procedure following such an inquiry. He emphasized the need for legal guidelines to address such gaps and demanded that an FIR be registered immediately for the alleged court took serious note of the injuries found on Suryawanshi's body and remarked that those in custody remain under the protection of the Constitution. 'If constitutional rights are violated in custody by an officer or even another inmate, the court must interfere at a prima facie stage,' the bench court also highlighted the nature and timing of the injuries - some of which were consistent with abuse sustained over several days - further strengthening the suspicion of custodial light of these findings, the court directed the police to file an FIR and proceed with an impartial investigation. The move has been welcomed by rights activists and legal experts as a significant step toward ensuring accountability in custodial death cases.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
‘Prima facie cognisable offence made out': Bombay HC directs govt to register FIR in Parbhani custodial death in a week
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday passed an interim order directing the Maharashtra government to register FIR within one week in custodial death of Somnath Surwayanshi, a labourer picked up by the police in December, 2024 following protests in Parbhani. The HC directed that FIR be registered based on the complaint filed by Somnath's mother on December 18, 2024, making allegations against police officers and that investigation be handed over to the officer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The court observed that there was 'prima facie material on record' to show that 'cognizable offence was made out', therefore the state should have registered the FIR. Suryawanshi (35), a labourer who was pursuing law, was among nearly 50 people arrested by the Parbhani police on December 11, 2024 following violent protests staged against December 10 vandalisation of a replica of Constitution outside Parbhani Railway station. Suryawanshi, belonging to a nomadic tribe, died in judicial custody in a local jail on December 15 last year, which police claimed was due to heart attack. A division bench of Justices Vibha V Kanknanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh passed an interim order on plea by Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, mother of Somnath, who alleged that he died due to custodial torture and brutality by police officers. The government had transferred the probe from local police to the state CID. Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, appearing for the mother, argued that despite the Judicial Magistrate having inquired into custodial death under section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the state government was not ready for registering FIR and taking further action. The magistrial inquiry had concluded that the police officers were responsible for his death. The petitioner, among other prayers, sought from court the direction to the state government to register FIR under section 103 (punishment for murder) and other provisions of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) along with sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Kankanwadi observed that in case of any medical query about death of a person, the inquiry or investigating usually approach the medical officers who conducted the autopsy. However, in the present case, 'interestingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State CID, has taken his own decision to make queries and seek opinion from a team of medical experts from JJ Hospital (state run), Mumbai and the Committee appears to have given a report on April 4, 2025 to Deputy Superintendent of Police, state CID, Parbhani.' The HC said that while it would not express opinion at present, the question that required to be gone into was why he did not seek an opinion of the seven-member team from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar that conducted the autopsy. Justice Kankanwadi for the bench perused 'entire record' and noted that there were 24 visible injuries as per postmortem report along with internal injuries. 'The question would then arise as to who has caused those injuries,' HC said. As per records, the bench said age of injuries was between few hours to four days before the death and all abrasions were between two to four days before the death and the team of seven doctors had given a probable cause of death as 'shock following multiple injuries'. 'Now, when there was prima facie material on record i.e. on the basis of inquest panchanama, postmortem report, report of Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 196 of BNSS and the complaint application by the petitioner, a cognizable office was made out and, therefore, State ought to have registered the FIR. The guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, were prima facie made out,' the HC held. 'We are of the opinion that the material which she was placing before the police, were sufficient for registration of the FIR,' the HC held in its interim order, posting further hearing on other prayers in the plea to July 30,
