Over 200 tribal families in KNP limits lack basic amenities: Adivasi Hakkagula Samanvaya Samithi
Shekhar Laila, convener of the samithi's Belthangady taluk unit, raised the issue at the SC/ST grievances redressal meeting convened by the Mangaluru City Police Commissionerate and Dakshina Kannada District Police here.
He said more than 210 tribal Malekudiya families residing in nine villages were deprived of basic amenities in the taluk.
Superintendent of Police K. Arun said that he would write to authorities concerned regarding the urgent need for road connectivity and footbridges for the residents.
Mr. Laila also raised the issue of 18 Group 'D' staff working on contract basis at the Belthangady taluk hospital receiving salary once in three or four months and not getting even a single day leave in a month.
The Superintendent of Police said that he would take up the issue with the District Health Officer.
In another instance, seven Koraga families of Atrinje at Sulkeri in Belthangady taluk were deprived of an all-weather connectivity infrastructure, as a bridge was built 21 km away from their habitat.
Another participant highlighted the plight of 13 Dalit families residing in Nirde and Ajakala of Balnadu village, Puttur taluk, who continue to lack proper road access to their houses. He said pregnant women, patients, and other residents face immense difficulty. Though the issue was brought to the Deputy Commissioner's notice, no action was taken.
Police Commissioner Sudheer Kumar Reddy clarified that any issue concerning SC/ST communities, including harassment or atrocities, may be reported to the nearest police station, which will conduct a preliminary inquiry before transferring the case to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE).
Those who are in distress can directly approach the DCRE, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court quashes dowry harassment case against in-laws, but allows trial against husband
Bengaluru: The high court quashed the proceedings against parents and a relative of a 25-year-old Bengaluru resident in a dowry harassment case. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted the allegations against these individuals lacked merit, particularly as the complainant herself admitted to a secret marriage unknown to the family. The case involves two individuals who met in their college years. The complainant frequently visited the man's residence, occasionally threatening self-harm if marriage was refused. This led to the man's father filing a police complaint on Oct 23, 2021, at Subramanyanagar police station. Following police intervention, the woman provided a written assurance to cease troubling the family. Subsequently, the couple eloped to Hassan, marrying on Jan 12, 2023, with registration completed on Jan 13, 2023. They lived separately, with the family unaware of these developments. The relationship deteriorated shortly after, leading to woman filing a complaint alleging various offences, including forced sexual relations when she was underage, brutal assault post-marriage, and stalking with threats to expose private content which the man allegedly recorded on his mobile. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The complaint also included charges under multiple acts, including SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Pocso Act , Dowry Prohibition Act, Information Technology Act, and various BNS sections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 World's Prettiest Star In The History Half Eddie Read More Undo The other accused were charged with public abuse under the Atrocities Act. The petitioners contested these allegations, arguing no prima facie case existed. They maintained the marriage was voluntary, and the complaint emerged as retaliation to divorce proceedings. Earlier complaints did not mention sexual assault claims, which were later added, citing incidents from Aug 4, 2019, Sept 4, 2019, and Sept 29, 2019. The court found allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 (parents and relative) lacking substantial evidence and legal basis. Justice Nagaprasanna also observed the requirements for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, particularly regarding public humiliation based on caste, were absent. However, the judge maintained proceedings against the husband, citing serious allegations including Pocso Act violations and rape charges prior to marriage, which necessitate a complete trial.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Sharda University didn't file FIR on student's suicide, SC informed
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has been informed that the Sharda University in Greater Noida, where a girl student allegedly committed suicide, did not register the FIR in the incident but her parents did and that security guards brought down her body hanging from the ceiling fan of her hostel. Sharda University didn't file FIR on student's suicide, SC informed The information was given in a status report filed by senior advocate Aparna Bhatt, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the matter by the apex court to assist it. A bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala is likely to hear the case on Monday. In her 30-page report, Bhatt said that in the incident related to Sharda University, the FIR was registered by the parents and not by the university, and two persons named in the suicide note have been arrested. The report also said that postmortem revealed death by asphyxiation, and the investigation is ongoing and would be completed soon. In the detailed report, the amicus curiae gave a sequence of events and different versions of information available of the incident and pointed out that the immediate cause of concern was a complaint by faculty member Dr Mahinder Singh Chauhan that the deceased had forged the signatures of her teachers in the manual that documents the practical work and is monitored by the teachers with regard to progress made. "Upon further questioning, the university officials admitted that the warden did not call anyone – neither university authorities, nor the police or the hospital for an ambulance. The body was brought down by the security guards and carried out on a bedsheet by four hostel staff members. The warden eventually called the parents to tell them their daughter was in a serious condition in the emergency room ; it is assumed that other students had already informed the parents. "No call to the PCR was body was taken to a government hospital in Noida for PMR and later taken by the family for last rites. The family has not been in touch with the university or the police since then," the report said. The status report also gave the police version in which they claimed that a series of protocols to be followed in such cases were violated by the university staff. "The body has to be moved by the police, but the university staff took it upon themselves to do that. The scene was thus compromised because the warden entered and multiple people left fingerprints in the room. Secondly, the university hospital issued the medico-legal certificate to the police, which is also against protocol. However, the officers clarified, the MLC only mentioned that she had no pulse and so on, but no internal examination of the body was conducted by the university hospital," the report said. Similarly, Bhatt also gave the status of investigation in IIT-Kharagpur case where a fourth year mechanical engineering student allegedly committed suicide. The report said the FIR was registered by the university in which no one named as accused, postmortem contents are not known and investigation status is also not known as the police did not respond. The report said according to the information shared by the registrar, the deceased student had a good CGP and there was a slight dip in his grade in the last semester of third year but the same was not significant. Bhatt said despite repeated attempts, the police officer could not be contacted and hence the status of the investigation cannot be reported. "The Amicus is informed by the Registrar of IIT Kharagpur that a post mortem was conducted but they are not aware of the findings," the report said. On July 21, the top court took suo motu cognisance of the students' deaths in both these institutes and asked the amicus curiae to submit a status report with regard to the incidents. It had noted that a fourth year mechanical engineering student of the IIT, Kharagpur allegedly committed suicide three days after he returned to the institute after two-month summer break and was pursuing a five-year dual degree programme. The bench had also noted that it is the fourth unnatural death at the institute in the past seven months. Similarly, the top court had noted that in Sharda University a 21-year-old bachelor of dental surgery second-year student allegedly committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note. The bench said, "We would like to know how promptly the FIRs were registered in both the cases. We would also like to know who registered the FIRs. We would also like to know how promptly the management of the IIT, Kharagpur and Sharda University acted no sooner they learnt about the suicides. We would also like to know what has the preliminary investigation undertaken so far revealed in both the cases." The top court has taken serious note of students' suicide in institutions of higher learning, and in March set up a national task force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent such incidents. On July 14, it had asked for a status report from the police in three states on the investigation over the suicides by students of IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kharagpur and a NEET aspirant in Kota, Rajasthan. The top court in its March 24 verdict appointed former apex court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat as the chairperson of the NTF and said secretaries of a state's higher education department, social justice and empowerment and legal affairs apart from the ministry of women and child development would be its ex-officio members. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Trial court not the first stop for investigation, says Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: SC has barred trial courts from directly entertaining complaints and ordering police to investigate them by ruling that prior to moving court for probing a cognisable offence, a person must approach jurisdictional police for registration of FIR. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said, "A magistrate ought not ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154 (3) of the code." Writing the judgment in a cross-case, Justice Mithal said magistrates must ask the informant to first approach the officer-in-charge of the police station and then the superintendent of police. "It is well recognized in law that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law. In other words, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly," he said. The bench did a conjoint reading of sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC and said, "It is crystal clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognisable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR." "However, if such information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the SP concerned. It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities that if he is not successful, he may approach the magistrate under section 156(3) of the CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognisance in accordance with section 190 of the CrPC," the bench said. SC said if the information about a cognisable offence is not being recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station or even by the SP, then the person aggrieved or the informant "may move the court the magistrate concerned to get the FIR registered and lodged with the concerned police station."
