Hawker gets 7-yr RI for chopping off civic official's fingers during drive
Thane: A sessions court on Friday convicted a hawker for the attempted murder of a former assistant commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) in 2021, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
The court imposed additional sentences on the hawker, Amarjit Yadav, to be served concurrently, besides slapping a fine on him.
According to special public prosecutor Shishir Hirey, Yadav attacked then assistant TMC commissioner Kalpita Pimple from behind with a sharp knife during an anti-encroachment drive at the weekly market in Thane's Kasarvadavali village on Aug 30, 2021. Three of Pimple's fingers were severed and she suffered injuries to other body parts too.
Two of the severed fingers were later recovered and partially restored through reconstructive surgery.
Pimple's bodyguard, who tried to shield her, was also assaulted.
During the trial, the court found Yadav guilty under multiple charges. Besides the conviction for murder attempt, the hawker was sentenced to two years under Section 353 of IPC for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of duty, two years under Maharashtra Police Act, and one year under Arms Act. All sentences are to run concurrently and involve rigorous imprisonment.
Hirey said 21 witnesses were examined during the trial. He said the prosecution presented conclusive evidence that established Yadav's intent and actions beyond reasonable doubt.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Man hides past divorces, loses current plea in HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has set aside the divorce decree granted to a man 5 years ago on the basis of cruelty and desertion, as he hid his prior two divorces from the wife. The couple married in in Jan 2010 but it did not last more than six months. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A child was born to them in Sept 2010. The couple have been living separately for nearly 15 years now. In 2019, the trial court granted the divorce, upholding the allegations of cruelty and desertion posed by the husband against the wife. While the husband claimed to have disclosed that he was a divorcee, the wife claimed that he did not disclose his two divorces prior to marrying her. The husband claimed that the wife left him after six months of marriage and kept complaining to everyone, including his employer, which led to him being fired. A part of his claim rested on the wife's purported neglect of household duties, her prioritisation of her legal profession as a practising advocate, and repeated threats to file false cases, which, according to him, resulted in a case under Section 498A of IPC. The wife's version was that she was driven out of the house while she was pregnant, and when she tried re-entering after giving birth, she was not allowed. She claimed that the husband questioned her "moral character". To support her claims, the wife submitted documents of the husband's two prior marriages and her approaching the protection officer in Howrah, showing her efforts to seek reconciliation and resume cohabitation. She approached the High Court, stating that the trial court "egregiously erred by equating her legitimate pursuit of legal redress" with cruelty, without any proof of it being false or with malicious intent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 11, The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "We conclude that a divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (eg, deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of 'clean hands'. " On the fact that the wife resorted to legal means for genuine grievance, the bench held that it cannot be automatically branded as "having committed cruelty" unless there is malicious intent shown.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Shooting at Mohali disco: Club owner used illegal pistol, say cops
1 2 Mohali: The disco owner who shot a man during a late-night altercation at Skull Club in Bestech Mall, Phase 11, used an illegally procured pistol stored in his desk drawer, police said on Friday. The incident, which occurred around 1 am on Thursday, left the victim, Sidharth Delu of Ganganagar, Rajasthan, critically injured. According to police, the root of the confrontation was an accidental brush between Delu's female companion and the accused, club owner Aditya Vij, on the dance floor. "The victim was dancing with his female friends when Aditya's shoulder accidentally hit one of them. This minor incident triggered a heated argument between Delu and Vij," said DSP Harsimran Singh Bal. The verbal spat escalated and spilled outside the disco, where, in a fit of rage, Vij allegedly retrieved a .32 bore pistol from his office drawer and shot Delu in the stomach. The police confirmed that the weapon used was illegal and added that they will recommend cancellation of the club's bar licence. "It is purely his mistake. He should have de-escalated the situation as the club's owner, but chose to act violently instead. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brass Krishna Idols For Prosperity & Protection In Life Luxeartisanship Shop Now Undo We will recommend cancellation of his operational licence," DSP Bal said. Both Vij and his accomplice were presented before the duty magistrate and have been sent to police remand for further questioning. Police also clarified that Skull Club was operating under a special provision with an extended licence obtained by paying an additional fee to the administration. An FIR has been registered at the Phase 11 police station under Sections 115, 109, 351(3), 126(2), 190, and 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with relevant sections of the Arms Act. Further investigation is ongoing.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
MP HC commutes death sentence of tribal youth in child rape case, citing lack of 'brutality', mitigating background
BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has commuted the death sentence of a 20-year-old tribal man convicted of raping and attempting to kill a four-year-old girl, reducing his punishment to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, who observed that while the act was undeniably brutal, it did not meet the threshold of "brutality" required for the death penalty under the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The case involved the convict, a 20-year-old from a Scheduled Tribe, who was found guilty by a trial court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to death. According to the prosecution, the convict entered the complainant's hut under the pretext of requesting a cot to sleep on, and later abducted and raped the minor victim from a nearby house during the night. He then left her in an unconscious state in a mango orchard, believing her to be dead. The High Court, while acknowledging the horrifying nature of the crime, noted: 'No doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality,' distinguishing between barbaric acts and acts of extreme cruelty or depravity. The bench considered several mitigating factors in its decision. The convict was described as an uneducated youth from a tribal community, whose parents never tried to educate or properly care for him. He left his home at an early age and was working in a roadside eatery to earn a living. There was no evidence of prior criminal conduct, and the court found no adverse reports regarding his behaviour. The bench further noted that the environment in which the convict grew up did not provide him with the proper atmosphere to develop. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 363, 450, 307, and 201 of the IPC, but commuted the death penalty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment, the convict will serve an additional year of rigorous imprisonment. The decision reflects the court's view that, despite the gravity of the offence and the young age of the victim, the circumstances of the convict's background and the absence of extreme brutality did not justify the death penalty in this case.
