Calling spouse dark not abetment: Court frees man 30 years after wife's suicide
The case dated back to January 1995, when the man's wife died by suicide after jumping into a well. Prior to her death, she had reportedly told her parents that she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws.According to the prosecution, the husband had taunted the woman over her dark complexion, said he did not like her, and threatened to marry another woman, while her father-in-law criticised her cooking and expressed dissatisfaction with the food she prepared.However, the High Court found that these incidents amounted to domestic discord, not criminal conduct."They can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel the woman to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out," said the bench.The Court said that while there was evidence of tension and disagreements within the household, they did not meet the legal threshold required to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.'The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment," the bench said.The bench further said, 'There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion.'Noting that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the woman's act of suicide, the court held that the trial court had overlooked fundamental legal principles. 'The Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections,' the High Court said, setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant's release.- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Police arrest key accused in 2014 Bejai shootout linked to Ravi Pujari gang
Mangaluru (Karnataka), Jul 27 (PTI) A fugitive accused in the 2014 shootout at Bharati Builders' office in Bejai, Mangaluru– allegedly orchestrated by associates of underworld gangster Ravi Pujari–has been arrested after nearly a decade on the run, police said on Sunday. Acting on reliable inputs and under the guidance of the City Police Commissioner, a team from Urwa Police Station, including Inspector Venugopal and constables Pramod, Narayan, and Govindraj, apprehended the accused Ganesh Sakat in Pandharpur, Maharashtra, Police said in a release. Sakat was produced before the court, and has been remanded to judicial custody, it said. The case, registered at Urwa Police Station, under sections 447 (Criminal trespass), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused, a native of Karad in Maharashtra's Satara district, had been absconding since 2015 after failing to appear before the JMFC 3rd Court in Mangaluru, which subsequently issued a warrant for his arrest. Police revealed that the accused is also wanted in another case registered at Kavoor Police Station. Additionally, he faces charges under the Arms Act in Karad, Maharashtra. Further investigation is underway, the police said. PTI COR KSU KH view comments First Published: July 27, 2025, 22:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Prison official suspended for public remarks on Govindachamy's jailbreak
Amid mounting criticism over systemic failures in the prison system following the sensational escape of rape and murder convict Govindachamy from the Kannur Central Prison, the Kerala government on Sunday suspended a prison official for publicly commenting on the case. The disciplinary action comes even as multi-pronged investigations are under way into the high-profile security breach that caught the law enforcement and prisons administration off-guard. Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (South Zone) Dinesh B. has ordered the immediate suspension of Abdul Sattar A., Deputy Prison Officer of Kottarakara Special Sub-Jail, pending inquiry, over his recent conduct and remarks made on a news channel. The statements in question relate to the escape by Govindachamy on Friday. According to the suspension order, Mr. Sattar allegedly made alarming claims, including that the convict had threatened to jump the jail and vowed to harm the officer's family if he escaped. He further claimed that stolen gold linked to the inmate had been hidden in graveyards in Coimbatore, and that these were being handled by certain people who purportedly backed Govindachamy in his case. Claiming that Govindachamy had harassed numerous women prior to his arrest, Mr. Sattar went on to express a desire that the convict should be executed, even claiming that he would be willing to serve as the executioner if needed. The order, which also stated that Mr. Sattar has previously been involved in several instances of misconduct, held that the condemnable statements have tarnished the department's image and violated Rule 62 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules as well as a circular issued by the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services. The department also emphasised that such conduct undermines public trust and professionalism expected of the prison staff. Probe instituted Three prison officers of the Kannur Central Prison had been suspended in the immediate aftermath of the jailbreak, with the government also instituting a special inquiry led by former Kerala High Court judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair and former State Police Chief Jacob Punnoose. The Opposition has raised allegations of security lapses and systemic negligence.
India Today
6 hours 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
