Latest news with #CriminalLawAmendmentAct
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Minor detained in robbery at gunpoint in Talawade
The Pimpri-Chinchwad police have detained a minor in the recent case of robbery at gunpoint that occurred on Sunday at around 1.25 pm near Raj Medical, Triveni Nagar Chowk, Talawade Road. The Pimpri-Chinchwad police have detained a minor in the recent case of robbery at gunpoint that occurred on Sunday at around 1.25 pm near Raj Medical, Triveni Nagar Chowk, Talawade Road. (REPRESENTATIVE PIC) According to the police, the victim, Vijay Bhalerao, 36, a resident of Talawade, was returning from his friend's birthday celebration at Marunji along with Praniket Jagtap on Sunday when the duo came across a white-coloured Swift (car) with tinted glasses being rashly driven. Bhalerao tried to overtake the car multiple times but in vain. At one point when he was trying to overtake, the Swift stopped right in front of his car and the driver got out of the Swift and started abusing Bhalerao. Two other persons got out of the car even as the driver proceeded to hold a gun to Bhalerao's head, threatening him. Meanwhile, Bhalerao's friend, Jagtap, too, was hit on the head with a gun. The accused snatched Bhalerao's two tola gold chain and licensed firearm and fled from the spot. Bhalerao was carrying a licensed pistol as he is a businessman with dealings in land, development etc. Later, he filed a complaint against three unknown persons at Chikhali police station. Vitthal Salunkhe, senior police inspector, Chikhali police station, said, 'As of now, we have detained a minor involved in this case and the search for the other accused is underway.' A case has been filed at Chikhali police station under sections 109, 309 (6), 127 (2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); section 3 (25) of the Arms Act; and sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. An FIR has been lodged, and the police are on the lookout for the other two accused.
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Time of India
4 PLFI rebels held in Khunti
1 2 Ranchi:Four People's Liberation Front of India (PLFI) ultras were arrested from Oraontoli in Khunti town on Sunday, police said. Khunti SP Manish Toppo said, "The rebels, identified Pawan Lohra, Vicky Lohra, Arjun Lohra, and Arpit Kerketta, are all residents of the district. A loaded country-made pistol, two loaded magazines, eight cartridges, a knife, a bike, and a scooter were seized from them. " Toppo said, "Police received a tip-off that some people with arms have gathered near a govt school with the intention to commit crime. A team led by Khunti sub-divisional police officer Varun Rajak carried out the operation and arrested the accused persons from a house." "During interrogation the accused persons said they had installed a Signal app in their mobile phones to communicate with other PLFI rebels, take instructions on collecting extortion money and firing to spread terror," he added. A case has been registered with the Khunti police station under provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the Arms Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Pawan is wanted in cases lodged in Namkum and Dhurwa police stations in Ranchi and Bagicha police station in Chhattisgarh. Vicky is also an accused in cases lodged with Namkum, Sukhdevnagar and Dhurwa police stations in Ranchi and Khunti police station.
IOL News
06-07-2025
- IOL News
When the music plays, the guilty tremble: Those implicated in Magaqa's assassination may face the law
Ncengwa, one of four accused who have been facing this case for eight years, pleaded guilty in pursuit of leniency. His admission shattered the reputations of respected public officials and revealed allegations of orchestrated criminality embedded within state systems. The testimony of Sibusiso Ncengwa (37) opens the door for the masterminds, coordinators, and hitmen implicated in the brutal murder of Sindiso Magaqa, former Secretary General of the ANC Youth League in September 2017, to face the full force of the law. In his formal plea statement submitted in terms of Section 220, Ncengwa revealed the painful truth that Magaqa was murdered because of his commitment to fighting crime and corruption within the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality, under the Harry Gwala District. His investigative efforts and steadfast opposition to corruption placed him in grave danger after uncovering patronage schemes that undermined fair procurement processes, and alleged embezzlement of funds earmarked for public infrastructure. According to Ncengwa, the plot to assassinate Sindiso Magaqa was initiated by Mluleki Ndobe, the then-mayor of the Harry Gwala District Municipality, who later shot himself at his home in November 2020, and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, the then-manager of the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality. These senior figures, Ncengwa claims, were aided by Mdu Ncalane, executive communications official at eThekwini Municipality and a known ANC provincial leader in KwaZulu-Natal. Ncengwa further stated that Mdu Ncalane played a pivotal role in linking Ndobe and Sikhosana to the hitmen, including Ncengwa himself, Mbulelo Mpofana, Sibonelo Myeza, and Mlungisi Ncalane. Ncengwa reported that Mdu Ncalane oversaw the delivery of the initial payment, approximately R120,000, which was divided among the perpetrators. These allegations underscore the reach of the justice system in addressing organised crime, particularly where a gunman, a plot originator, and an intermediary are involved. This is supported by provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, whose application surges with the fury of the uThukela in flood, when brought to bear against orchestrated acts of violence. Under the legal doctrines of common purpose and collaborative criminal intent, soliciting, facilitating, or aiding a murder is legally tantamount to drawing the bow and firing the arrow yourself. This establishes that all who played a role must face equivalent charges. Beyond the Criminal Law Amendment Act, South African courts are bound to uphold the principle of legal precedent, where past decisions of superior courts provide binding guidance in similar cases. Rulings such as S v Mgedezi & Others (1989), S v Pule (1995), S v Masilela & Another (2001), and S v Thebus & Another (2003) establish that individuals who plan, facilitate, or materially support a murder, such as by paying for it or supplying weapons, can be held equally liable as the perpetrator, provided they shared the intent and associated themselves with the criminal act. According to this doctrine, a person who did not physically carry out the murder but who facilitated or supported the plan may face the same murder charges as the actual perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is established, Mdu Ncalane and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, named by Ncengwa as coordinators and masterminds, could face equivalent charges for premeditated murder under the classification of "principal in the first degree." This affirms the legal view that justice is not concerned with who fired the gun, but with who ordered it to be fired. The public must attentively watch Ncengwa's sentencing, scheduled for today, which follows his plea of guilty to premeditated murder, confirming that the evidence against him has already been tested by a competent court with authority to establish precedent. This creates a solid legal foundation that such evidence, once accepted for conviction, cannot later be disregarded or diminished when introduced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as leading evidence against the remaining accused, including Mdu Ncalane and a court cannot contradict or discard evidence it has previously deemed sufficient to convict. Therefore, if the NPA opts to leverage Ncengwa's testimony to pursue others, the court must treat them consistently, without bias or dilution of evidentiary weight. Accordingly, Ncengwa's sentencing must not be viewed merely as the end of a chapter in this case. It may mark the beginning of a broader challenge to government institutions, particularly the judiciary, to follow evidence with integrity, ensuring that justice proceeds unimpeded by political agendas or leadership with ulterior motives. *The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper. DAILY NEWS
IOL News
06-07-2025
- IOL News
When the music plays, the guilty tremble: Those implicated in Magaqa's assassination may face the law
Ncengwa, one of four accused who have been facing this case for eight years, pleaded guilty in pursuit of leniency. His admission shattered the reputations of respected public officials and revealed allegations of orchestrated criminality embedded within state systems. The testimony of Sibusiso Ncengwa (37) opens the door for the masterminds, coordinators, and hitmen implicated in the brutal murder of Sindiso Magaqa, former Secretary General of the ANC Youth League in September 2017, to face the full force of the law. In his formal plea statement submitted in terms of Section 220, Ncengwa revealed the painful truth that Magaqa was murdered because of his commitment to fighting crime and corruption within the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality, under the Harry Gwala District. His investigative efforts and steadfast opposition to corruption placed him in grave danger after uncovering patronage schemes that undermined fair procurement processes, and alleged embezzlement of funds earmarked for public infrastructure. According to Ncengwa, the plot to assassinate Sindiso Magaqa was initiated by Mluleki Ndobe, the then-mayor of the Harry Gwala District Municipality, who later shot himself at his home in November 2020, and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, the then-manager of the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality. These senior figures, Ncengwa claims, were aided by Mdu Ncalane, executive communications official at eThekwini Municipality and a known ANC provincial leader in KwaZulu-Natal. Ncengwa further stated that Mdu Ncalane played a pivotal role in linking Ndobe and Sikhosana to the hitmen, including Ncengwa himself, Mbulelo Mpofana, Sibonelo Myeza, and Mlungisi Ncalane. Ncengwa reported that Mdu Ncalane oversaw the delivery of the initial payment, approximately R120,000, which was divided among the perpetrators. These allegations underscore the reach of the justice system in addressing organised crime, particularly where a gunman, a plot originator, and an intermediary are involved. This is supported by provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, whose application surges with the fury of the uThukela in flood, when brought to bear against orchestrated acts of violence. Under the legal doctrines of common purpose and collaborative criminal intent, soliciting, facilitating, or aiding a murder is legally tantamount to drawing the bow and firing the arrow yourself. This establishes that all who played a role must face equivalent charges. Beyond the Criminal Law Amendment Act, South African courts are bound to uphold the principle of legal precedent, where past decisions of superior courts provide binding guidance in similar cases. Rulings such as S v Mgedezi & Others (1989), S v Pule (1995), S v Masilela & Another (2001), and S v Thebus & Another (2003) establish that individuals who plan, facilitate, or materially support a murder, such as by paying for it or supplying weapons, can be held equally liable as the perpetrator, provided they shared the intent and associated themselves with the criminal act. According to this doctrine, a person who did not physically carry out the murder but who facilitated or supported the plan may face the same murder charges as the actual perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is established, Mdu Ncalane and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, named by Ncengwa as coordinators and masterminds, could face equivalent charges for premeditated murder under the classification of "principal in the first degree." This affirms the legal view that justice is not concerned with who fired the gun, but with who ordered it to be fired. The public must attentively watch Ncengwa's sentencing, scheduled for today, which follows his plea of guilty to premeditated murder, confirming that the evidence against him has already been tested by a competent court with authority to establish precedent. This creates a solid legal foundation that such evidence, once accepted for conviction, cannot later be disregarded or diminished when introduced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as leading evidence against the remaining accused, including Mdu Ncalane and a court cannot contradict or discard evidence it has previously deemed sufficient to convict. Therefore, if the NPA opts to leverage Ncengwa's testimony to pursue others, the court must treat them consistently, without bias or dilution of evidentiary weight. Accordingly, Ncengwa's sentencing must not be viewed merely as the end of a chapter in this case. It may mark the beginning of a broader challenge to government institutions, particularly the judiciary, to follow evidence with integrity, ensuring that justice proceeds unimpeded by political agendas or leadership with ulterior motives. *The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper. DAILY NEWS
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court grants bail to nine accused in Nagpur riots over Aurangzeb's tomb row
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench on Wednesday granted bail to nine persons arrested in connection with the riots that erupted on March 17, 2025, against demands for removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district. The court observed that while the accusations were serious — including charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, and multiple State Acts — the investigation was complete, a chargesheet had been filed, and prolonged incarceration without trial would serve little purpose. Disposing of the bail applications, the judge ordered that the applicants — Mohammad Iqbal Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Absar Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Izhar Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Ejaz Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohammad Rahil; Mohammad Yasir; Mohd. Muzammil Ansari; Ashfaque Ullah Khan, and Mohd. Iftekhar Mohd. Sabir — be released on bail on their executing a bond in the sum of ₹1 lakh each with one solvent surety of the like amount each. The accused were arrested under Sections 45, 49, 50, 61(2), 74, 76, 79, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 117(4), 118(1), 118(2), 121(1), 121(2), 125, 126(2), 127(2), 132, 135, 189,(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 192, 195(1), 195(2), 196(1), 197(1), 223, 296, 324(2), 324(3), 324(4), 324(5), 324(6), 326(F), 326(G), 351(2), 351(3), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and under Sections 3, 4, and 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The judge ordered that the applicants should not indulge in the similar type of activities and one single registration of the crime of the similar nature would lead to cancellation of bail. They should not induce or threat or promise to any of witnesses connected with the crime in question and should not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The applicants should attend proceedings before the trial on every date without seeking any exemption, unless there were exceptional circumstances. 'It is a settled principle of law that 'bail is rule and jail is exception'. Considering the investigation is already completed and chargesheet is already filed, no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants behind bar and the trial will take its own time for its final disposal,' the judge said. 'Threat to public order' The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, with Senior Public Prosecutor D.V. Chauhan argued that the alleged actions amounted to 'a form of terrorism' and posed a threat to public order and safety. He cited CCTV footage, mobile location records, and a WhatsApp group named 'Sunni Youth Force,' allegedly used to mobilise the mob, as evidence of the applicants' involvement. However, defence counsel — including senior advocate A.V. Gupta and others — countered that the evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs) and belatedly conducted test identification parades, did not substantiate specific roles for the accused. They argued that the accused had been arrested primarily on suspicion and had already spent more than three months in custody without trial. Advocate Mohammad Aadil Sheikh, appearing for one of the accused, argued that the probe in the case was complete and hence the accused should be granted bail. According to police reports, stone pelting and arson were reported in several parts of Nagpur on March 17 after rumours began circulating about a 'chadar' with holy inscriptions being burnt during protests led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) seeking the removal of Aurangzeb's tomb located at Khultabad town in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district. Assistant Police Inspector Jitendra Gadge, who was on duty, reported that a large group of nearly 500–600 people from the Muslim community later gathered at the Gandhi Gate, raising slogans and reportedly attacking police personnel with stones and petrol bombs. The applicants also caused damage to the public and government property. Five Deputy Commissioners of Police, one Assistant Sub Inspector and 25 police constables who were trying to keep peace and maintain law and order situation, sustained injuries in the alleged incident. CCTV footage discloses involvement of applicants in the alleged incident. Statements of witnesses disclose involvement of applicants in provoking the public at large. At various places, people started gathering along with weapons and the accused attacked police personnel at Bhaldarpura Square with deadly weapons and stones. They used petrol bombs and abused police officers. The mob also outraged modesty of women police officers and constables and abused them in filthy language. They also caused damage to vehicles, the police charge sheet said. Some persons burnt effigies of grave of Aurangzeb at Shree Chhatrapati Maharaj Statue, Gandhi Gate, Mahal, Nagpur. The said incident was reported by one Faheem Khan by approaching the police station along with 50-60 persons. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered under Section 223 of the BNSS read with Sections 37(1) and 37(2) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act against nine persons. More than 123 persons, including 19 juveniles, were arrested by the Nagpur police following the riots.
