MUMBAI: Relying on Supreme Court’s observation that the testimony of a person with a disability can’t be considered weak or inferior only because they interact with the world in a different manner, a sessions court recently sentenced a 35-year-old salon worker to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for abduction and rape of a woman with moderate intellectual disability in 2019, marking a rare conviction under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.Calling the victim a “sterling witness”, judge Surekha A Sinha found the man guilty on multiple counts, including rape under IPC. He was given one year in jail under Section 92(b) of Disabilities Act (assaulting or using force against a person with a disability). The sentences are to run concurrently.Psychiatrists deposed that while the woman was 25 years old physically, her social age was around seven years and two months, with an IQ of 36.According to the prosecution, on April 29, 2019, the survivor’s mother noticed that she had gone missing after the family returned from voting in the Lok Sabha polls. When the woman returned home shortly after, she was in tears and revealed her assault. She said while playing in a nearby lane, the accused caught her hand and forcibly took her to the mezzanine floor of his residence. There, he threatened her with a knife, gagged her with a pillow, and sexually assaulted her. To destroy evidence, she said, the man washed her with soap.During trial, special public prosecutor Geeta Sharma examined 14 witnesses. While forensic reports were inconclusive — a result the prosecution attributed to the accused washing the victim after the assault — medical experts provided critical testimony. Doctors confirmed that the victim had suffered physical trauma consistent with sexual assault.The defence said the case was built on hearsay and cited minor discrepancies in the testimony. The judge rejected these, saying the testimony of a person with a disability must be treated with “utmost sensitivity”. “Minor discrepancies and contradictions are not fatal to the case of prosecution. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.”

CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana HC denied bail to Gurmukh Singh — son of former Akal Takht jathedar Jasbir Singh Rode — and Gurmej Singh in a narco-terrorism case related to smuggling of arms, explosives (including tiffin bombs), and narcotics from Pakistan via drones to fund terror activities in Punjab and other parts of India.A division bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari said sponsoring terrorism was an “expensive affair” and the charge was of heroin being smuggled into the country, along with arms and ammunition, to fund terror activities.“Facts brought on record by NIA, prima facie, prove the involvement of appellants in terror activities. Trial is in progress. Since they have links with persons across the border, who fund their activities, there are also chances of their absconding from trial,” HC said. It ordered an expeditious trial and directed police and prosecution to complete evidence in a timely manner.NIA’s prime allegations are that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy involving “receipt, concealment, and distribution of arms, explosives, and terror funds intended to revive militancy in Punjab”. The agency alleged multiple consignments were collected between June and Aug 2021, concealed at locations across Punjab that were shared through encrypted messaging platforms. The agency claimed to have recovered grenades, detonators, pistols, cartridges, explosive materials, large sums of cash, multiple passports, and vehicles from Gurmukh.Gurmukh’s counsel argued he was falsely implicated due to his family background and political reasons, and claimed there was no direct recovery from his possession. NIA asserted that evidence clearly pointed to his role in facilitating terror activities.The agency submitted the appellants were allegedly in contact with Lakhbir Singh Rode alias Baba, a declared terrorist and chief of a banned organisation.

NEW DELHI: Nearly three decades after Supreme Court’s Vishaka judgment mandating a mechanism against the sexual harassment of women at workplaces, it remains unimplemented by many high courts, including Calcutta, Patna, Orissa, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Allahabad and Uttarakhand.Appearing for PIL petitioner Geeta Rani, senior advocate Sonia Mathur told SC that, significantly, district courts in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, too, do not have any such mechanism. The bench sought status reports from registrar generals of the defaulting HCs, and bar associations and bar councils all over the country.

‘Lack of redressal mechanism undermines women’s rights’

The petitioner told the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the absence of a gender-sensitised complaint-handling structure in many courts, bar associations and tribunals results in serious constitutional violations and discourages women from fully participating in the justice delivery process.“In several courts across the country, there is either no established internal redressal mechanism, or the mechanism is not duly notified, accessible or functional. Information about complaint procedures, responsible authorities, or grievance redressal channels is often unavailable or opaque,” she said. “Sensitisation and awareness among court administration, judicial staff, security personnel and lawyers also remain inadequate. This systemic deficiency exposes women to an unsafe environment and undermines their constitutional guarantees,” the petitioner said.In the Vishaka judgment in 1997, Supreme Court had laid down mandatory guidelines requiring all institutions, including courts, to establish mechanisms for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at workplace, recognising women’s right to equality, dignity and a safe work environment under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In 2013, SC, in the Medha Kotwal Lele case, had reaffirmed and strengthened the Vishaka guidelines, and directed all institutions to ensure effective, independent and accessible complaint mechanisms to safeguard women’s rights at workplaces. In 2015, SC had constituted the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee for protection of female lawyers, employees, interns and litigants within court premises.The petitioner said, “The absence of similar mechanisms in HCs, district courts and tribunals results in unequal treatment of women lawyers across judicial Institutions and hence, violates Article 14. A constitutional standard available within SC must be replicated for every court of justice in the country.”

NEW DELHI: A day after Supreme Court rejected the bail plea of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam by holding that delay in trial and long incarceration cannot be the sole ground to grant relief, another bench of the court on Tuesday held that an accused has fundamental right to speedy trial and it is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

It said delay in trial is a valid ground to grant bail and granted relief to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham who has been in jail for the last 16 months in a money laundering case.“The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence,” said a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe. It said SC had in multiple cases invoked long incarceration to grant bail when the jail period ranged from 3-17 months.

If state can’t ensure speedy trial, don’t oppose bail plea: Supreme Court

Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment,” said the SC bench.Though Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have spent almost six years in jail, are being prosecuted for terror acts under UAPA, the bail provisions — under Section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act — are similar. Both say an accused cannot be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true and condition is imposed under the accused to demonstrate prima facie innocence.The court’s order granting bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham is in contradiction to the order passed while rejecting the bail plea of the student activists but it is in conformity with orders passed by SC earlier, including in cases of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and TN minister Senthil Balaji. It shows inconsistency in the approach of the apex court.Allowing the plea of Dham, the bench said gravity of offence is one of the factors which is to be considered while deciding bail but said that statutory restrictions (as provided under PMLA, UAPA) cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.“It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime,” it said.“The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-judge bench of this court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial,” the court added.The bench noted that there was no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future as there are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. “There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.While allowing bail plea of UAPA accused K A Najeeb, alleged to be a member of banned PFI, Chief Justice Surya Kant, who was part of a three-judge bench and penned the judgment, had said Section 43D(5) of UAPA per se did not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights of accused.

Amid growing demand for a CBI probe into the 2022 Rishikesh resort murder case, in which a 19-year-old receptionist was allegedly killed under mysterious circumstances, CM Pushkar Dhami Tuesday said his govt was open to “all forms of probe” to get answers. The incident had triggered massive protests across Uttarakhand at the time. Dhami said he would also meet the woman’s parents and discuss the matter with them.Calling the case “extremely heartbreaking and sensitive”, Dhami said sentiments of entire state were connected to the case. “Being the CM, I will meet them. After examining all legal aspects, whatever they say regarding justice for their daughter will be followed”.The CM said those involved in the crime would not be spared. “Earlier, it was due to a probe by SIT that three accused were sentenced to life. Some audio recordings have recently come to the fore. We have formed an SIT to probe the matter and the ex-MLA and others whose names have surfaced must cooperate. Instead of remaining on the run, those who made allegations should appear before police so the truth can come out,” he said.Not ruling out a “planned political conspiracy” behind the latest row, Dhami said a similar audio leak had surfaced during the exam paper leak issue. “Hue and cry was created then too. Now another audio leak is being used to spoil the environment of Uttarakhand,” he said, taking a swipe at Congress netas for trying to revive their political careers through the case.Questioning circumstances surrounding the clips, Dhami said it was suspicious that the phone was switched off after releasing the audio and a presser was held in Delhi though the matter pertained to Uttarakhand. He said police and social media records confirmed that the party in-charge named in one audio did not visit Uttarakhand during the period mentioned.Cops tried to approach those levelling fresh allegations and pasted notices at their houses, but they continue to avoid sleuths, he said. Police in Haridwar have constituted an SIT to probe the audio involving a woman, Urmila Sanawar, whose allegations have led to the political storm. The row escalated after several audio clips were allegedly released by Urmila, in which expelled former BJP MLA Suresh Rathore was purportedly referring to a “VIP” who he alleged was a senior BJP neta. It was insinuated that the “VIP” had visited the resort and “sought favours” from the receptionist. Rathore later denied allegations, claiming that the clips were “AI-generated”.