Fake encounter of wanted gangster: Court rejects prosecution's plea to add 4 cops as accused
The Mumbai Police arrrested eight people, including five Gurgaon police personnel, in connection with the case during 2016-17, claiming that the encounter was staged on February 7, 2016, at a hotel near the Mumbai international airport.
Special public prosecutor Amin Solkar moved a plea, stating that witness deposition had shown the involvement of four more policemen. The plea said that the evidence showed that the two teams of the Gurgaon police were formed under the directions of the then DCP (crime) for the operation to trace Gadoli, who was wanted in many cases in Haryana.
While the officials of one of the teams, including the main accused Pradyuman Yadav who was leading the team, were arrested, the officer leading the other team and two others who were standing guard outside the hotel, were not named as accused. The Special Public Prosecutor also said that evidence pointed towards the involvement of the DCP and that the second team's officer was in touch with him before and after the operation.
The accused already facing trial in the case opposed the plea, stating that there was no fresh evidence brought to the fore by the prosecution and at this stage of the trial, when the case is nearing its end, the plea is only going to cause delay, with three of the accused behind bars for over nine years. The accused submitted that with no fresh material, there was no justification why the plea was being moved now at this belated stage.
While 195 witnesses were cited in the case, 43 were examined during the trial. Additional sessions judge Prashant Kale said the trial is time-bound by the Supreme Court and the prosecution was seeking adding four men as accused on charges of criminal conspiracy. It said that an application moved under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) needs evidence of a higher degree.
'There is no prima facie evidence againt other persons for using summons against them as prayed,' the court said in its order on July 5.
On Tuesday, the prosecution submitted that it was closing its evidence in the case. Now, the court will hear defence witnesses if the accused want to examine any, following which the final arguments will be heard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
The law of driving on Indian roads
India has the highest absolute number of road accident fatalities in the world; this moderates somewhat when seen per capita, but remains a significantly high figure — higher than, say, China, which has a comparable population but higher vehicle density. Road accident deaths are also easily preventable. So, the Supreme Court's observation that sudden and unannounced braking is negligence, particularly if it endangers others, could be read as a response to the high human toll. The Supreme Court's observation that sudden and unannounced braking is negligence, particularly if it endangers others, could be read as a response to the high human toll. (Hindustan Times) However, if the observation, made in a compensation order becomes the basis for wider application, it is likely to come up against the practical difficulties of driving on Indian roads, where one can spot the entire historical trajectory of man's engagement with motion in a single reel — starting with pedestrians, handcarts, bullock cards, bicycles, autos, cars, buses and trucks, many often driving on the wrong lane or in the wrong direction. Speeding, tailgating, jaywalking, lane-changing without signalling, and a raft of other traffic infractions are all too common — as is dereliction of personal safety conduct. Add to this animals straying onto the roads and potholes and craters, and sudden braking becomes both an unavoidable hazard of and survival tactic for driving on Indian roads. It will be no minor challenge to penalise sudden breaking, that is, if the apex court's observation becomes the law. The way forward is to crack down on infractions that prompt sudden braking. Severe penal action is the only way to enforce road rules, and no authority should be spared from action, including when they fail to maintain roads in conditions suitable for safe driving and walking. But such action must also factor in the ground realities.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
Quoting from a 1977 Supreme Court judgment, which held that 'adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error', the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged in Rajkot in 2010 against a then minor for alleged rape. The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010. Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.' The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.' The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity. The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'. The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…' The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'. The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Will first hear on maintainability issue on August 6 on pleas seeking review of PMLA verdict: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would first hear arguments on August 6 on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to arrest, attach properties allegedly involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the ED has proposed three preliminary issues that primarily deal with the question of the review petitions' maintainability. The bench said the review petitioners have proposed 13 questions for its consideration. It noted the submissions of the questions raised by both parties and fixed the matter for further hearing on August 6. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions, followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' the bench observed. The Supreme Court had on 4 May 2025 reconstituted a new bench to hear a batch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. The VMC judgment was delivered on 27 July 2022 by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. 'Sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, relating to the Directorate's power of attachment, search and seizure, and arrest is upheld,' the top court had said.
