Updates on Arushi Talwar Murder Case

Yesterday, Vijay Mandal an accused in the "Arushi Murder Case" was granted bail by Gaziabad Court on a surety of Rs. 25,000, following a bail plea moved by the accused that the agency did not have any proof to name him as an accused in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case. It is noteworthy that the father who was declared an accused has already been granted bail.

CBI lawyers opposed the plea, arguing that the investigation was going on and his release would hamper any available evidence but court found that they had no evidence against Vijay Mandal. However still two accused remain in Jail. But this points fingure at the laxity in investigating the crime both by UP police and CBI. The former jumping the gun and declaring the father Dr. Rajesh Talwar the murderer. While CBI declaring the nexus of domestic servents inspite of having no concerete evidence. They are yet to find the murder weapon.

Drunken driving !! Not 304A can amount to 300 IPC

Additional Sessions Judge, Vinod Kumar of Patiala House Court has opined in his 87 page jugement in the notoriously famous "BMW hit & run Case" that “If a drunken person drives a vehicle in a highly rash or dangerous manner and thereby kills a human being, this offence goes beyond the purview of section 304A (rash and negligent driving) of the IPC and such gross recklessness should fall within the purview of section 300 (murder).”

What comes out of Appeals is a subject matter of time but the long standing argument that "Automobile in the hands of a drunken person" must be equated to a weapon gains weight. The judgement is also historical in the sense that it comes under the shadow of corrupting a witness by collusion of prosecution (Khan) and defense lawyers (Anand).

This judgement also gives a strong message to people who believe that with money and power they can buy any evidence or witness thereby the judgement. Just because you are in the capacity to hire the best legal support would not result in a favourable judgement.

Stronger parties have traditionally won litigation in civil matters, consider the case of Napster, where a startup .com was pitched against an organised money and power rich association. The same arguments are levied against YouTube, but winning case against YouTube will not be easy as it has the backing of a Giant (the partent company "Google").

But when the matters are criminal in nature, the things should be different, here the crime is against Society as a whole thus prosecutor is the State. Nonetheless, this was happening in criminal cases also, but thanks to Media attention now being rich and powerful will definately be a handicap for anyone facing charges. There are other noteable cases where media attention due to being a celebrety or a page3 socialite has landed people in greater trouble like that of Actor Salman Khan's "Hunting Case."

Intercepted phone calls valid evidence under MCOCA: SC

When : 1 September 2008

Held : That a state can legally make special laws even on subject matters like telephone communication and insurgency, figuring in the Union List so long as it is to combat special organised crimes like extortion, gun-running, money-laundering, terrorism and insurgency.

Matter : A Bench of chief justice KG Balakrishnan and justices RV Raveendran and MK Sharma, while quashing a Bombay High Court order of 2003 in which the court had held that Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 of MCOCA, relating to interception of communication was subject to Central List.and therefore government of Maharashtra had no right to enact a law on this subject.

Impact : The ruling is likely to give impetus to trials in several cases being tried under MCOCA, including those related to the 2007 Mumbai train bombings and will also strengthen the implementing of similar law in Gujarat.

Parties : State of Maharashtra, Bharat Shah.