2 cousins with same name meet same fate
Ludhiana: Two cousins with the same name have been awarded a life in prison for killing their neighbour over a financial dispute. A fine of Rs 10,000 each has also been slapped on the two convicts.
Kulwinder Singh, son of Kulwant Singh, and his namesake, son of Jagjit Singh --- both from Tajpur, were charged with IPC sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) on Jan 29, 2017 by Sadar Raikot police.
The victim, Bhupinder Singh (28), was a father of two --- a son and a daughter.
Bhupinder's father, Harpal Singh, told police that the accused had an old rivalry with his son.
Harpal has a scrap business.
On the fateful day, around 7.30 in the evening, he said both the accused took Bhupinder with them on a motorcycle, possibly intending to harm him.
Anxious, he along with his wife and brother-in-law went after them. On the way, they were told that the accused were seen taking his son towards Lohatbaddi via the Klasian main road. When they reached a palace near Lohatbaddi, they were told that the suspects had turned left along a drain.
As they continued searching along the road lining the drain, about 1km ahead, they heard someone let out a scream. This was around 8.30pm.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Zumbido e perda de audição? Médico revela técnica caseira de 1 real para aliviar!
Zumbido no ouvido
Undo
When they rushed to the spot, they saw the accused attacking Bhupinder with knives. He lay there in a pool of blood with serious injuries, and when they raised an alarm, the attackers fled towards Lohatbaddi, carrying their weapons. Bhupinder died on the spot.
The father said the accused had demanded money from Bhupinder earlier and threatened him with dire consequences if he refused to pay them. On his complaint, the accused were booked and subsequently arrested.
Police prepared a charge-sheet against them and presented it in court.
During the trial of the case, the accused pleaded false implication. The defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the accused to murder Bhupinder and that the claim of a money dispute was only verbal without any documentary proof.
The court of additional sessions judge/fast track court, Sandeep Singh Bajwa, observed that the argument was flawed and could not be accepted.
"It is important to understand that motive lies within the mind of the accused and does not always need to be proven by the prosecution. In many cases, it is not possible to uncover the exact motive behind a crime. While some motives are clear and supported by evidence, others may remain uncertain or hidden.
However, when there is strong and convincing eyewitness testimony and clear evidence showing the role of the accused in the crime, the absence of a proven motive does not weaken the prosecution's case," the court observed.
Pronouncing the quantum of sentence to the two convicts, the court held, "Looking at the present case, it does not qualify as one of those rarest of rare cases."
Harpal Singh has a scrap business. He is the father of two sons and a daughter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
The real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said
Before this week, I had never heard of Sharmistha Panoli. A law student from Pune, she was unknown to the wider public until her recent arrest by the Kolkata Police over an Instagram story about Operation Sindoor. But in the span of a few days, she has become the latest symbol of how speech, particularly on sensitive religious or political themes, is being policed with alarming ease in India. Her case adds to a growing list of individuals across professions and ideologies who have been targeted not for inciting violence or causing harm, but for expressing opinions that upset entrenched sensitivities. This is not an isolated occurrence. It is part of an expanding trend where comedians, students, content creators, and ordinary citizens find themselves entangled in criminal proceedings for speech that would, in any healthy democracy, be dismissed as opinion, satire, or dissent. Looking back at the 2021 arrest of comedian Munawar Faruqui in Indore, the pattern is unmistakable. Faruqui was taken into custody based on allegations that he might have hurt religious sentiments without any conclusive evidence that he had actually said anything objectionable at all. Despite the absence of clear proof, he spent over a month in jail. This was not the enforcement of law; it was the use of the law to intimidate and punish. Ranveer Allahbadia, widely known as BeerBiceps recently found himself facing FIRs across multiple jurisdictions for a spontaneous remark made in a show. His tone may have been satirical, even immature, but it was hardly criminal. Yet, across social media and police complaints, outrage translated into legal action. What was once comic exaggeration is now treated as derogatory or controversial speech. Even comics like Kunal Kamra have faced legal scrutiny for expressing critical views about the judiciary and a Maharashtra-based political party. Although contempt proceedings did not ultimately succeed, the fact that they were initiated at all shows the shrinking space for public engagement with institutions. The message is chilling: Humour, critique, and unorthodox views now come with the threat of real consequences. The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli must be examined within this context. It is essential to locate these incidents within the framework of India's penal provisions. Sections such as 153A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS) were crafted with specific thresholds: The promotion of enmity between groups, or deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, respectively. These are not intended to criminalise criticism or satire but to prevent acts that pose a clear and present danger to public order. Both provisions require proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a high bar that ensures the state does not casually suppress expression. The Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. And while Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions, those restrictions are meant to be carefully and narrowly applied. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court clarified that only speech which incites imminent lawless action can be criminalised. Anything short of that is constitutionally protected. Yet, that benchmark is routinely ignored by enforcement agencies. The danger is not only legal but cultural. A climate of hypersensitivity is being allowed, sometimes even encouraged, to override the fundamental right to free expression. It is no longer necessary to incite violence to get arrested. One only needs to say something provocative, or unpopular, or irreverent, especially on matters of faith. Speech is judged not by its legality, but by its potential to cause outrage. This creeping culture of intolerance weakens our constitutional democracy. It corrodes the idea of public reason that democratic systems depend upon. It also flips the burden: Instead of the state having to justify a restriction on speech, the citizen must now justify why their expression should not be criminalised. It bears repeating that disagreement, offence, or even remarks made in bad taste are not grounds for arrest. In a plural and diverse society like India, different viewpoints, even uncomfortable or controversial ones, must be accommodated unless they present a real and immediate threat to public order. This is the bedrock of constitutionalism. The consequences of arrest are far-reaching. Even when bail is eventually granted or charges are dropped, the process itself becomes punishment. It damages reputations, chills further expression, and reinforces the idea that it is safer to remain silent than speak one's mind. This is especially dangerous when applied to students and young professionals. The arrest or harassment of a law student like Sharmistha Panoli, or the above-mentioned comedians, indicates a clear pattern which cuts across ideology, gender, and geography. This does not reflect a society that values public debate. It reflects one that fears it. In the end, the real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said. The question is whether we are willing to live in a country where the price of speaking is a prison cell. If that becomes the norm, then it is not just free speech that suffers, it is our collective claim to be a constitutional democracy. The writer is a legal researcher specialising in constitutional law, based in Delhi
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
TMC''s P V Anvar declares assets worth over Rs 52 crore in election affidavit
Last Updated: Malappuram(Kerala), Jun 3 (PTI) Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader P V Anvar, who is contesting in the Nilambur assembly bypoll, has declared assets, including both movable and immovable, of over Rs 52 crore and liabilities of Rs 20 crore in the election affidavit filed with his nomination papers on Monday. Anvar has in his affidavit disclosed movable assets of over Rs 18 crore and immovable property worth over Rs 34 crore. In 2021, he had declared assets worth over Rs 64 crore and liabilities of around Rs 17 crore. According to his affidavit, his two wives have total assets, including 1.2 kgs of gold each, worth over Rs 8 crore and Rs 3 crore, respectively. Anvar, who completed his pre-degree (class 11 and 12) education from Kozhikode University in 1985, also has liabilities of around Rs 20 crore, which includes loans of Rs 9 crore from various banks, his affidavit stated. Besides these, he is also facing 10 criminal cases for various offences including destruction of government property, leaking phone calls of government officials, leaking official secrets, defamation and making provocative speeches aimed at inciting violence, according to his affidavit. In none of these cases, mostly initiated between 2024 and 2025, charges have been framed against him, it said. Anvar, whose resignation as a Left-backed independent MLA paved the way for the by-election, filed his nomination after launching a new political front — Janakiya Prathipaksha Prathirodha Munnani (JPPM) — after the Congress-led UDF declined him a spot in the front. He, on Sunday, announced his decision to contest the bypoll, a day after he claimed he does not have the funds for it. PTI HMP HMP ADB First Published: June 03, 2025, 11:15 IST
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Court Rejects Patanjali Ayurved's Petition Against Rs 273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Patanjali Ayurved Limited's petition challenging Rs 273.50-crore goods and service tax (GST) penalty. A division bench comprising Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit rejected Patanjali's argument that such penalties constitute criminal liability and can be imposed only after a criminal trial. The bench was of the view that tax authorities can impose penalties under Section 122 of the GST Act through civil proceedings without requiring criminal court trials. The court clarified that GST penalty proceedings are civil in nature and can be adjudicated by proper officers. "After detailed analysis, it is clear that the proceeding under Section 122 of the CGST Act is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer and is not required to undergo prosecution," the bench said. Patanjali Ayurved operates three manufacturing units at Haridwar (Uttarakhand), Sonipat (Haryana) and Ahmednagar (Maharashtra). The company came under investigation following information received by authorities about suspicious transactions involving firms with high Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilisation but no income tax credentials. The investigation led to allegations that Patanjali "acting as a main person indulged in circular trading of tax invoices only on paper without actual supply of goods". The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad issued a show cause notice on April 19, 2024 to Patanjali Ayurved, proposing a penalty of Rs 273.51 crore under Section 122(1), clauses (ii) and (vii) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. Later, the DGGI dropped tax demands under Section 74 through an adjudication order dated January 10, 2025. The department found that "for all the commodities, the quantities sold were always more than the quantities purchased from the suppliers, thereby making the observation that all the ITC which was availed in the impugned goods was further passed on by the petitioner". Despite dropping the tax demand, authorities decided to continue with penalty proceedings under Section 122, prompting Patanjali to challenge this before the high court. After hearing both sides, the court in its judgment dated May 29 dismissed the petition.
