Latest news with #CriminalLawAmendmentAct
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy
NEW DELHI: Opposing the government's firm stand not to lower the age of consent below 18 years, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising told Supreme Court that it criminalised "consensual sexual activity between children in the age group of 16-18 years, and violated their right to autonomy". Presenting a counter to Centre's stand in the case, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and "neither any rational reason was given justifying the increase to 18 years nor was there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase". "Until enactment of Pocso Act , there was no law dealing with sexual offences against children. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Section 63, has kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that amended IPC to increase the age of consent to 18 years," she said. Jaising said increase in age of consent violated right of autonomy of children in 16-18 age group, who could give mature consent to sexual activity given the fact that they had attained puberty and, consequentially, sexual awareness. However, she put in an important caveat. "This brief does not suggest that anyone above the age of 18 who has sex with another below the age of 18 be decriminalised," she said. "Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and development of sexual relationships of choice," Jaising said, adding, "Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law. " Jaising requested SC to "declare that any consensual sexual activity between children of the ages of 16-18 constitutes an exception to penal provisions of the statute as being 'close in age', non-abusive and non-exploitative". Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals, she said, adding, "Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious relationships or inter-caste relationships. "Consensual sexual relations between adolescents in the 16-18 age bracket need not necessarily result in marriage, but on the contrary, criminalising such sexual behaviour will result in children eloping and getting married to avoid being prosecuted by Pocso." She suggested to the court that the law as it stands requires to be read down to include a 'close in age' exception when the sexual activity is consensual.
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Minor detained in robbery at gunpoint in Talawade
The Pimpri-Chinchwad police have detained a minor in the recent case of robbery at gunpoint that occurred on Sunday at around 1.25 pm near Raj Medical, Triveni Nagar Chowk, Talawade Road. The Pimpri-Chinchwad police have detained a minor in the recent case of robbery at gunpoint that occurred on Sunday at around 1.25 pm near Raj Medical, Triveni Nagar Chowk, Talawade Road. (REPRESENTATIVE PIC) According to the police, the victim, Vijay Bhalerao, 36, a resident of Talawade, was returning from his friend's birthday celebration at Marunji along with Praniket Jagtap on Sunday when the duo came across a white-coloured Swift (car) with tinted glasses being rashly driven. Bhalerao tried to overtake the car multiple times but in vain. At one point when he was trying to overtake, the Swift stopped right in front of his car and the driver got out of the Swift and started abusing Bhalerao. Two other persons got out of the car even as the driver proceeded to hold a gun to Bhalerao's head, threatening him. Meanwhile, Bhalerao's friend, Jagtap, too, was hit on the head with a gun. The accused snatched Bhalerao's two tola gold chain and licensed firearm and fled from the spot. Bhalerao was carrying a licensed pistol as he is a businessman with dealings in land, development etc. Later, he filed a complaint against three unknown persons at Chikhali police station. Vitthal Salunkhe, senior police inspector, Chikhali police station, said, 'As of now, we have detained a minor involved in this case and the search for the other accused is underway.' A case has been filed at Chikhali police station under sections 109, 309 (6), 127 (2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); section 3 (25) of the Arms Act; and sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. An FIR has been lodged, and the police are on the lookout for the other two accused.
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Time of India
4 PLFI rebels held in Khunti
1 2 Ranchi:Four People's Liberation Front of India (PLFI) ultras were arrested from Oraontoli in Khunti town on Sunday, police said. Khunti SP Manish Toppo said, "The rebels, identified Pawan Lohra, Vicky Lohra, Arjun Lohra, and Arpit Kerketta, are all residents of the district. A loaded country-made pistol, two loaded magazines, eight cartridges, a knife, a bike, and a scooter were seized from them. " Toppo said, "Police received a tip-off that some people with arms have gathered near a govt school with the intention to commit crime. A team led by Khunti sub-divisional police officer Varun Rajak carried out the operation and arrested the accused persons from a house." "During interrogation the accused persons said they had installed a Signal app in their mobile phones to communicate with other PLFI rebels, take instructions on collecting extortion money and firing to spread terror," he added. A case has been registered with the Khunti police station under provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the Arms Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Pawan is wanted in cases lodged in Namkum and Dhurwa police stations in Ranchi and Bagicha police station in Chhattisgarh. Vicky is also an accused in cases lodged with Namkum, Sukhdevnagar and Dhurwa police stations in Ranchi and Khunti police station.
IOL News
06-07-2025
- IOL News
When the music plays, the guilty tremble: Those implicated in Magaqa's assassination may face the law
Ncengwa, one of four accused who have been facing this case for eight years, pleaded guilty in pursuit of leniency. His admission shattered the reputations of respected public officials and revealed allegations of orchestrated criminality embedded within state systems. The testimony of Sibusiso Ncengwa (37) opens the door for the masterminds, coordinators, and hitmen implicated in the brutal murder of Sindiso Magaqa, former Secretary General of the ANC Youth League in September 2017, to face the full force of the law. In his formal plea statement submitted in terms of Section 220, Ncengwa revealed the painful truth that Magaqa was murdered because of his commitment to fighting crime and corruption within the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality, under the Harry Gwala District. His investigative efforts and steadfast opposition to corruption placed him in grave danger after uncovering patronage schemes that undermined fair procurement processes, and alleged embezzlement of funds earmarked for public infrastructure. According to Ncengwa, the plot to assassinate Sindiso Magaqa was initiated by Mluleki Ndobe, the then-mayor of the Harry Gwala District Municipality, who later shot himself at his home in November 2020, and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, the then-manager of the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality. These senior figures, Ncengwa claims, were aided by Mdu Ncalane, executive communications official at eThekwini Municipality and a known ANC provincial leader in KwaZulu-Natal. Ncengwa further stated that Mdu Ncalane played a pivotal role in linking Ndobe and Sikhosana to the hitmen, including Ncengwa himself, Mbulelo Mpofana, Sibonelo Myeza, and Mlungisi Ncalane. Ncengwa reported that Mdu Ncalane oversaw the delivery of the initial payment, approximately R120,000, which was divided among the perpetrators. These allegations underscore the reach of the justice system in addressing organised crime, particularly where a gunman, a plot originator, and an intermediary are involved. This is supported by provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, whose application surges with the fury of the uThukela in flood, when brought to bear against orchestrated acts of violence. Under the legal doctrines of common purpose and collaborative criminal intent, soliciting, facilitating, or aiding a murder is legally tantamount to drawing the bow and firing the arrow yourself. This establishes that all who played a role must face equivalent charges. Beyond the Criminal Law Amendment Act, South African courts are bound to uphold the principle of legal precedent, where past decisions of superior courts provide binding guidance in similar cases. Rulings such as S v Mgedezi & Others (1989), S v Pule (1995), S v Masilela & Another (2001), and S v Thebus & Another (2003) establish that individuals who plan, facilitate, or materially support a murder, such as by paying for it or supplying weapons, can be held equally liable as the perpetrator, provided they shared the intent and associated themselves with the criminal act. According to this doctrine, a person who did not physically carry out the murder but who facilitated or supported the plan may face the same murder charges as the actual perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is established, Mdu Ncalane and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, named by Ncengwa as coordinators and masterminds, could face equivalent charges for premeditated murder under the classification of "principal in the first degree." This affirms the legal view that justice is not concerned with who fired the gun, but with who ordered it to be fired. The public must attentively watch Ncengwa's sentencing, scheduled for today, which follows his plea of guilty to premeditated murder, confirming that the evidence against him has already been tested by a competent court with authority to establish precedent. This creates a solid legal foundation that such evidence, once accepted for conviction, cannot later be disregarded or diminished when introduced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as leading evidence against the remaining accused, including Mdu Ncalane and a court cannot contradict or discard evidence it has previously deemed sufficient to convict. Therefore, if the NPA opts to leverage Ncengwa's testimony to pursue others, the court must treat them consistently, without bias or dilution of evidentiary weight. Accordingly, Ncengwa's sentencing must not be viewed merely as the end of a chapter in this case. It may mark the beginning of a broader challenge to government institutions, particularly the judiciary, to follow evidence with integrity, ensuring that justice proceeds unimpeded by political agendas or leadership with ulterior motives. *The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper. DAILY NEWS
IOL News
06-07-2025
- IOL News
When the music plays, the guilty tremble: Those implicated in Magaqa's assassination may face the law
Ncengwa, one of four accused who have been facing this case for eight years, pleaded guilty in pursuit of leniency. His admission shattered the reputations of respected public officials and revealed allegations of orchestrated criminality embedded within state systems. The testimony of Sibusiso Ncengwa (37) opens the door for the masterminds, coordinators, and hitmen implicated in the brutal murder of Sindiso Magaqa, former Secretary General of the ANC Youth League in September 2017, to face the full force of the law. In his formal plea statement submitted in terms of Section 220, Ncengwa revealed the painful truth that Magaqa was murdered because of his commitment to fighting crime and corruption within the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality, under the Harry Gwala District. His investigative efforts and steadfast opposition to corruption placed him in grave danger after uncovering patronage schemes that undermined fair procurement processes, and alleged embezzlement of funds earmarked for public infrastructure. According to Ncengwa, the plot to assassinate Sindiso Magaqa was initiated by Mluleki Ndobe, the then-mayor of the Harry Gwala District Municipality, who later shot himself at his home in November 2020, and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, the then-manager of the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality. These senior figures, Ncengwa claims, were aided by Mdu Ncalane, executive communications official at eThekwini Municipality and a known ANC provincial leader in KwaZulu-Natal. Ncengwa further stated that Mdu Ncalane played a pivotal role in linking Ndobe and Sikhosana to the hitmen, including Ncengwa himself, Mbulelo Mpofana, Sibonelo Myeza, and Mlungisi Ncalane. Ncengwa reported that Mdu Ncalane oversaw the delivery of the initial payment, approximately R120,000, which was divided among the perpetrators. These allegations underscore the reach of the justice system in addressing organised crime, particularly where a gunman, a plot originator, and an intermediary are involved. This is supported by provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, whose application surges with the fury of the uThukela in flood, when brought to bear against orchestrated acts of violence. Under the legal doctrines of common purpose and collaborative criminal intent, soliciting, facilitating, or aiding a murder is legally tantamount to drawing the bow and firing the arrow yourself. This establishes that all who played a role must face equivalent charges. Beyond the Criminal Law Amendment Act, South African courts are bound to uphold the principle of legal precedent, where past decisions of superior courts provide binding guidance in similar cases. Rulings such as S v Mgedezi & Others (1989), S v Pule (1995), S v Masilela & Another (2001), and S v Thebus & Another (2003) establish that individuals who plan, facilitate, or materially support a murder, such as by paying for it or supplying weapons, can be held equally liable as the perpetrator, provided they shared the intent and associated themselves with the criminal act. According to this doctrine, a person who did not physically carry out the murder but who facilitated or supported the plan may face the same murder charges as the actual perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is established, Mdu Ncalane and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, named by Ncengwa as coordinators and masterminds, could face equivalent charges for premeditated murder under the classification of "principal in the first degree." This affirms the legal view that justice is not concerned with who fired the gun, but with who ordered it to be fired. The public must attentively watch Ncengwa's sentencing, scheduled for today, which follows his plea of guilty to premeditated murder, confirming that the evidence against him has already been tested by a competent court with authority to establish precedent. This creates a solid legal foundation that such evidence, once accepted for conviction, cannot later be disregarded or diminished when introduced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as leading evidence against the remaining accused, including Mdu Ncalane and a court cannot contradict or discard evidence it has previously deemed sufficient to convict. Therefore, if the NPA opts to leverage Ncengwa's testimony to pursue others, the court must treat them consistently, without bias or dilution of evidentiary weight. Accordingly, Ncengwa's sentencing must not be viewed merely as the end of a chapter in this case. It may mark the beginning of a broader challenge to government institutions, particularly the judiciary, to follow evidence with integrity, ensuring that justice proceeds unimpeded by political agendas or leadership with ulterior motives. *The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper. DAILY NEWS
