Gujarat Woman, 70, Arrested 16 Years After Highway Robbery-Murder
It was the winter of 2009. On March 18, a couple was returning from an acquaintance's last rites in Ahmedabad's Ghatlodia when, around 9 pm, between Kamod and Indiranagar, a gang stopped them. The gang reportedly attacked the couple with a laundry bat and robbed them of their belongings, including jewellery and mobile phones.
The couple, injured, was left to die on the road until passersby spotted them and rushed them to a nearby hospital. The man died of his injuries during treatment.
A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Jamna, and eight others based on a complaint from the survivor. According to media reports, eight were arrested, of which seven were found guilty and sentenced. But Jamna was missing.
And then began the chase.
Jamna moved from one village to another, one city to another, evading police. Meanwhile, Jamna's husband and son were arrested and convicted by the police in several cases. The two served their sentences and were released from jail after serving their time, but Jamna was nowhere to be found.
It is on Tuesday, the police managed to track down Jamna during her visit to Aslali to meet her daughter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
18-yr-old woman dies by suicide, husband, mother-in-law arrested
Pune: Lonikand Police on Tuesday arrested a man and his mother-in-law following the tragic suicide of an 18-year-old newly-married woman. The deceased was a resident of Dongargaon, Haveli taluka, and was married for three months only when she reportedly ended her life due to sustained mental and physical harassment by her husband and mother-in-law. The deceased reportedly ended her life due to sustained mental and physical harassment by her husband and mother-in-law. (Shutterstock) According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by her maternal uncle, a resident of Sainagar in Chandannagar, the deceased woman was frequently left alone at home, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and her mobile phone smashed, actions that caused extreme emotional distress. The alleged harassment took place between May 24 and August 8. The FIR was lodged on Aug 12. According to information shared by the police, the complainant's niece was repeatedly assaulted by the husband and told to go and die. She was not allowed to speak to anyone, kept isolated in the house, and subjected to both extreme physical and mental harassment by both the accused. Unable to bear the torment, she took the extreme step and ended her life. Assistant inspector Vijaya Wanjari, who is investigating the case, said 'We have registered a case of abettment to suicide based on the family's complaint and a thorough investigation is underway.'
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Ex-minister Bacchu Kadu sentenced to 3 months in jail for asaulting officer
Seven years after he assaulted a public servant, former Maharashtra MLA Bachchu Kadu was on Tuesday convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment by a court here, noting that being a legislator "didn't give him a license" to Sessions Judge Satyanarayan Navander imposed a Rs 10,000 penalty on Kadu. His sentencing has been suspended till he files an appeal in a higher court, and he was granted Kadu had not hit the complainant IAS officer and merely made a gesture with an iPad, the court noted that a threatening gesture was enough to create an apprehension of imminent use of criminal force. The court also observed that officers involved in policy-making and planning should have protection so that they can work fearlessly and court convicted Kadu under sections 353 (assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant to deter them from performing their duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, while absolving him of the intentional insult charge."No doubt, there can be grievances about governance or management of a particular department or even regarding conducting the examinations during the recruitment processes of the government. But that does not mean that any representative of the people would go to such an officer and attack him violently, intimidating the officer and disrupting his business," the court the accused might genuinely have wanted to address a grievance, his approach was "inherently improper", the court said, stressing that noble purpose notwithstanding, a public servant cannot be threatened with harm to life or reputation."Merely because the accused was a sitting MLA, he didn't have a licence to deter a public servant by criminally intimidating him or by assaulting him in his office," the judge incident occurred on September 26, 2018, when Kadu, the founder of Prahar Janshakti Party, visited the office of IAS officer Pradeep P, the then Director of the Information & Technology Department in Mumbai, to discuss mega recruitment by the Maharashtra IT prosecution alleged that the discussion escalated into a heated argument, during which Kadu became picked up an iPad from the officer's table and made a gesture to hit him, the prosecution said.A case was registered based on a complaint lodged by the IAS officer a day after the incident, which stated he was in court rejected the defence's argument that since no actual physical force was applied, the offence was not judge stated that the threatening gesture itself was enough to create an apprehension of imminent use of criminal court stated that section 353 of the IPC aims to ensure that public officials carry out their responsibilities, without fear of intimidation or violence, to uphold the rule of law and maintain public order."The officers who are in policy making and planning should have protection so that they can work fearlessly and effectively,' the court judge said Kadu could have explored legal ways to address the grievances."He was a sitting MLA. Many avenues were open for him. He could have addressed his complaint even directly through the Chief Minister,' the court judgement highlighted that Kadu, instead of choosing the "appropriate and legitimate way", went to the office of the informant and assaulted him in "unsuited fashion", which maligned the image not only of the officer, but of the government.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Is a ‘potentiality of abuse' of BNS Section 152 a ground to declare the law unconstitutional, asks the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) asked if 'potentiality of abuse' by the state of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes 'acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', could be a ground to declare the law itself unconstitutional. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the Foundation of Independent Journalism and Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of the online news portal The Wire, who is facing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 152 and other offences under the BNS at Morigaon Police Station, Assam, for the publication of a news article. The petition submitted that the arrest of Mr. Varadarajan and/or others was 'imminent'. The Bench protected Mr. Varadarajan and the members of the Foundation from any coercive action by the police. It issued notice to the Union government and the State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while noting that a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India had issued notice on a separate petition, filed by S.G. Vombatkere, identically challenging Section 152 a few days ago, on August 8. Ms. Ramakrishnan argued that Section 152 of the BNS, though worded differently and avoiding the term 'sedition', was 'in essence' the colonial sedition provision of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). BNS had replaced the IPC at a time when the legality of Section 124A was considered suspect by the apex court, and had been referred to a Constitution Bench for judicial scrutiny and an authoritative pronouncement. The senior counsel submitted that Section 152 was vaguely worded, its ambiguity cloaking an immense capacity to chill free speech, especially of journalists. At this point, Justice Bagchi agreed with Ms. Ramakrishnan that vagueness in a penal provision was a valid ground to challenge it. He referred to how the apex court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for its vague terminology, which indirectly worked to aid authorities to use arrest as a tool to crush dissent. Justice Bagchi said the apex court's judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case had clearly defined that sedition could not be invoked under Section 124A until there was clear proof that words or action had incited violence. 'The acts which come within Section 124A and Section 152, by way of comparative interpretation, would be covered by the ratio of the Kedar Nath Singh verdict that unless there is a clear threat to unity and sovereignty, the offence [of sedition] need not be attracted,' Justice Bagchi observed. Justice Kant said a general list of acts endangering sovereignty could not be prepared by the court; it would depend on a case by case basis 'For example, mere political dissent cannot endanger sovereignty,' Justice Kant said. Again, on the issue of the vagueness of Section 152, Justice Kant indicated that being too specific would also be an invitation for trouble. 'Inviting the Legislature to define 'sovereignty' would be a big danger,' Justice Kant remarked. Mr. Mehta asked whether a challenge to a provision could be used as a ground to gain anticipatory bail or seek the quashing of an FIR under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Kant responded by asking Mr. Mehta whether custodial interrogation was necessary in the case of journalists. 'When media persons get entangled, it is usually something they wrote or a programme aired, etc… These are matters which do not require custodial interrogation,' Justice Kant addressed the law officer. Mr. Mehta replied that journalists could not be considered a 'separate class' while applying the provisions of the criminal law. 'No, but we are on the balancing of their [journalists'] fundamental right to speech against your [the state's] right to investigate and maintain public order,' Justice Bagchi clarified to Mr. Mehta.
