The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Chandigarh Stories

COURTS

HIGH COURT
Death sentence on duo commuted to life term
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Aug 31 — Holding two rape and murder convicts to be ‘‘products of all-around sickness in society’’, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today commuted their sentence from death to life imprisonment.

The duo — Sanjay and Anil — were sentenced to death by Sonepat’s District and Sessions Judge for murdering a six-year-old girl after raping her in March 1997. The girl’s body was found outside a religious place a day after being kidnapped.

According to the prosecution, the victim was playing with her cousin in a park when she was kidnapped. Her cousin had informed her father that a washerman, Sanjay, present in the park, had taken the victim away on his bicycle.

The accused, when confronted with the incriminating evidence against them, had, however, denied the allegations. Claiming to be innocent, they had asked for a trial. The defence counsel had argued that the two were being implicated in the case.

Delivering the verdict, the Bench, comprising Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice K.S. Garewal ruled: ‘‘The accused were the products of all-around sickness in the society and for this reason the death sentence seems to be too harsh a penalty to be imposed on them because society must share the blame for producing such maniacs and for inflicting a horrible trauma on the girl’s family’’.

‘‘The accused’’, the Bench also observed, ‘‘do not seem to reflect the image of hardened sex maniacs or perverts with a predisposition towards child molestation. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest this. Had they been a bit older and their victim a girl in teens, this court would have shown less indulgence leading perhaps to the confirmation of the death sentence’’.

Pre-arrest bail to woman on killing

The high court today granted anticipatory bail to a Jalandhar woman accused of being involved in the murder of a housewife.

Taking up the petition filed by Manjit Kaur, Mr Justice S.S. Nijjar directed that the petitioner, in the event of her arrest, should be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

She was apprehending arrest in a case registered under Section 302, 342 and 120-B of IPC, on the complaint of Sukhdev Singh alleging his wife’s murder.

According to the prosecution, Manjit Kaur was having a relationship with the complainant’s brother. The complainant and his wife were objecting to it. It was also alleged that a witness in the case had overheard Manjit Kaur telling hired assassins to do away with the victim.

After hearing the arguments, Mr Justice Nijjar observed: “In my view, even if the allegations contained in the FIR prima facie are accepted to be true, there seems to be hardly any case against the petitioner”.

Remarks against ex-AG expunged

Our Legal Correspondent adds: A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr Justice H.S. Bedi and Mr Justice A.S. Garg, today allowed an application filed by Mr Mohan Jain, former Advocate-General, Haryana, and ordered the expunction of certain adverse observations made in the judgement dated December 27, 1999 in the case relating to the elections to the municipalities, gram panchayats, etc in Haryana.

In the application, it was pleaded that a writ petition was filed by one Surjit Singh and another for amending the electoral rolls of panchayats etc being not in conformity with the Assembly electoral rolls published on July 21, 1999. The petition was disposed of on September 30 on the basis of the statement made by Mr Jain that voters list be revised on the basis of Assembly electoral rolls and the same be prepared after affording an opportunity of hearing following the prescribed procedure.

Thereafter, on an application filed on behalf of Congress Legislature Party and others, the order was recalled and the petition was dismissed. The then Advocate General had taken a stand that the government was unaware of the statement made by Mr Jain, which was factually incorrect as in the reply filed by the state through its Director-cum-Joint Secretary (Development & Panchayats the statement made by Mr Jain was defended. The High Court had allowed the connected cases vide judgement dated December 27, 1999, and in the said judgement, certain adverse observations were made against Mr Jain.

It was pleaded by Mr M.L. Saggar, counsel of Mr Jain, that the said remarks/observations were liable to be expunged in view of the fact that the contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court had been dropped and further, he had no opportunity to explain his position before the passing of the said judgement.

The High Court after going through the pleadings and the fact that the elections had already taken place, allowed the application and ordered the expunging of the remarks made against Mr Jain in the said judgement. Along with the application of Mr Jain, one filed by Mr T.D. Jogpal, state Election Commissioner, through Mr Ashok Aggarwal, was also allowed by the High Court and the observations made against him, were also ordered to be expunged.

HUDA told to allot alternative plot
Tribune News Service

PANCHKULA, Aug 31 — The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Haryana Urban Development Authority to allot a 10-marla plot in Sector 7, Kurukshetra, pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 1,000 as costs of proceedings, besides adjusting the excess amount deposited by Mr Ram Kumar Dhiman of Ambala in future installments.

In his complaint, Mr Dhiman had alleged he was allotted a plot in Sector 7 of Kurukshetra. While he deposited 10 per cent at the time of furnishing the application, he was required to deposit Rs 29,013 within one month of receiving the allotment letter. However, he was asked to pay Rs 51,257.80 and allotted a 321.2 sq m plot in place of 220 sq. m.

After depositing the amount, he found the plot improper for construction of a residential house, being triangular in shape. He stated that the area seemed more suitable for a green belt rather than a house and refused to take possession while requesting for an alternative site.

He deposited the last installment in 1997 and made a payment of Rs 1,05,890.80. He added that the same plot was earlier allotted to another person who raised objections after which it was exchanged for an alternative site. He alleged that reallotment of a site found unsuitable for residential purposes amounts to deficiency in service.

Upon notice, HUDA stated that the complainant was a defaulter on account of interest as well as extension fee as per terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. Also, the dimensions of the plot were mentioned in the letter which were accepted without pressure. Following this, the complainant led his evidence by way of affidavits and tendering of certain documents, while HUDA failed to do the same.

The Bench observed that the dimensions of the plot made it ''quite unfit'' for residential construction for which the complainant deserved an alternative site.

In another case, the forum directed HUDA to pay an interest as compensation at 15 per cent per annum on the amount deposited by Ms Meenakshi Bansal of Chandigarh and ordered a payment of Rs 20,000 for mental agony.

Ms Bansal's complaint stated that she was allotted a plot in Sonepat in 1991 on free-hold basis at a tentative cost of Rs 3,89,928. She added that after paying 25 per cent of the amount, she paid four out the six installments but was not given physical possession of the plot even though they were committed to deliver the same within 90 days. Besides, no development work had been carried out in the area even though they offered possession of the site in 1999.

The opposite party stated that the complainant had deposited only four installments, while the fifth and sixth were still outstanding, besides another outstanding sum on account of enhancement of cost of the plot. They informed that development work had also been carried out in the area.

The Bench observed that the inordinate delay in delivery of plot tantamounted to deficiency in service and that HUDA, essentially for welfare, should not acquire land which was likely to take several years for development.