Latest news with #StateofMaharashtra
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC refuses to quash Pocso charges against judge, cites shocking allegations
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act against a suspended judicial officer accused of sexually abusing his daughter. Describing the case as 'shocking', the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan held that it was certainly not fit for quashing by any legal standard. The observations were made during the hearing of a special leave petition in Sandeep vs State of Maharashtra. Bombay High Court order upheld The petition was filed against the 15 April order by the Bombay High Court, which had also declined to quash the charges under the Pocso Act. According to LiveLaw, Justice Manmohan further stated orally: 'This is a shocking case. This is a judicial officer—serious allegations of incest! Madam, this is not the case to be entertained for quashing by any standard. I don't know what legal advice you are getting, but this is not a case, certainly, by any standard. Your daughter is making the allegations, no? She must have been scarred for life.' Petition dismissed, trial to be expedited The bench dismissed the petition, stating, 'After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the High Court.' Additionally, the court directed that the name of the victim be masked wherever it appears in the paperbook of the special leave petition. The court also allowed the trial to be expedited, paving the way for faster proceedings.
News18
02-06-2025
- News18
'Mentally Ill, Not Murderous': After 23 Years, Allahabad HC Acquits Man Of Killing Wife, Son
Last Updated: The high court held that the trial court had failed to consider vital evidence relating to the mental health of the accused. The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man, who had been serving a life sentence for allegedly murdering his wife and son in 2002, citing lack of mens rea due to mental illness. A division bench of Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Shree Prakash Singh set aside the 2005 conviction delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, in which Rajesh alias Sajesh Tewari, was found guilty of killing his wife Kamlesh and their son Durgesh with a sharp-edged weapon while they slept. The high court held that the trial court had failed to consider vital evidence relating to Tewari's mental health, which included documented psychiatric treatment and eyewitness accounts of his disturbed behavior. 'The overall examination of the evidences including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, is enough to establish that the appellant was suffering with certain impaired mental condition and thus, the instant matter obviously, falls in a category of general exception (under Section 84 IPC)," the court observed. A gruesome double murder occurred during the intervening night of August 31–September 1, 2002. The first information report was lodged by Tewari's father, Prahlad Kumar Tewari, who stated that his son had been mentally unwell for over a year and was undergoing psychiatric treatment. He had initially informed police that his son committed the crime, but later turned hostile in court. The medical evidence showed multiple deep incised wounds on both victims, consistent with injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon. A weapon ('Banka') was recovered from the crime scene based on the appellant's disclosure. However, crucial witness testimonies—including that of the couple's surviving elder son—supported the narrative of long-standing mental illness. The boy had informed his grandfather about a quarrel the night of the incident, prompting the latter to discover the bodies. While the prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence was conclusive, the high court disagreed. It ruled that the trial court had mechanically ignored the appellant's mental condition and failed to apply the legal standards for evaluating an insanity defense. 'The learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant," the bench concluded, emphasising that it is the duty of courts to interpret criminal actions in the light of both physical and mental capacity. The high court cited multiple Supreme Court precedents including Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) and Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), stressing that lack of criminal intent, due to insanity, nullifies culpability. First Published:
