Boy electrocuted to death on mango tree

Bengaluru, Feb 18: A 26-year-old Kannada singer committed suicide over alleged dowry harassment on Monday. Sushmitha, a playback singer who got married to Sharath Kumar about one-and-a-half years ago, hung herself from the ceiling at her parent's home in Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru on Monday.

The singer sent a Whatsapp to her brother and mother before hanging herself early morning on Monday. She accused her husband and his relatives of dowry harassment in her death note.

According to Bengaluru Police, the singer has accused her husband, his sister and his aunt of harassing her for dowry in her death note. On Monday morning, Sushmitha's brother alerted the police after he found her dead body hanging from the ceiling. She used her dupatta to hang herself.

Sushmitha had lent her voice for Kannada songs in films like Haalu Thuppa and Srisamanya.

Police informed that Sushmitha sent a Whatsapp message to her brother, Sachin, at around 1 am on Sunday and explained that her husband Sharath and her relatives have been harassing her since the time she got married. Sachin read the message at around 5:30am and rushed to her room where he found her hanging from the ceiling.

In the text message, Sushmitha wrote that her husband, Sharath, his sister, Geetha, and his aunt, Vydehi, harassed her and they were the reason behind her ending her life. She also stated that she did not want to end her life in their house and hence came to her parents’ house.

The Annapoorneshwari Nagar police have registered a case of dowry death, charging her husband and his sister and aunt based on complaint filed by Sushmitha’s mother Meenakshi. The three accused are on run after hearing about her death and police said that efforts are on to trace them.

Sushmitha's husband Sharath Kumar is a manager in a car showroom and a resident of KS Nagar in Bengaluru.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.