Custodial murder: 2 policemen get death penalty; 3 officers jailed

Agencies
July 25, 2018

Thiruvananthapuram, Jul 25: In a rare judgment, a special court of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram today awarded death penalty to two policemen in connection with the custodial death of a youth in 2005.

The court had on Tuesday (July 24) found the two personnel – K Jithakumar and S V Sreekumar, both civil police officers at the time of the incident and first and second accused in the case – guilty of custodial torture that led to the death of Udayakumar (27) at the Fort Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram. They were also directed to pay a penalty of Rs 2 lakh each.

CBI special judge J Nasser awarded three-year jail terms each to three other officers - T K Haridas (then assistant commissioner), E K Sabu (then circle inspector) and Ajith Kumar (then sub-inspector) - found guilty of fudging documents and destroying evidence in a cover-up attempt. K V Soman, then additional SI and third accused in the case, died during the trial.

A police team took into custody Udayakumar and his friend Suresh Kumar from the Sreekanteswaram Park in Thiruvananthapuram on September 27, 2005, for suspected theft. After ascertaining that Udayakumar was in possession of Rs 4,020, the policemen subjected him to third-degree treatment at the station to extract a confession, including the use of an iron pipe on his body, inflicting severe injuries that led to his death. The officers charged with conspiracy had registered a false case against Udayakumar after his death.

Suresh was among the witnesses who turned hostile after the trial in the case commenced.

J Prabhavathi, Udayakumar’s aged mother who fought the 13-year-long legal battle, called it a landmark judgement and said it was a verdict she was expecting. “No son should have to suffer like my son did,” she told reporters.

Comments

Well Wisher
 - 
Wednesday, 25 Jul 2018

Wow!!!

 

Took too long, yet justice prevailed. We also need such brave judge in DK too.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

A.Rahman
 - 
Friday, 22 May 2020

First of all  A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

 

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

 

Over all it is the sign  of a profesional ; qualified  eligble  lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he  is. Am personally met him and  witnessed his court appearance  hope and wish him all the best and success .

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 2,2020

Mangaluru, Jul 2: A frontline covid-19 warrior who was working in the Wenlock Covid hospital in the city has been tested positive for the coronavirus. 

Sources said that he was a pathologist working in covid testing laboratory of the Wenlock Covid hospital.

A few days ago, a senior health official had tested positive for the covid-19.

Dakshina Kannada has so far recorded deaths of 18 covid-19 patients. A total of 14,137 samples have been tested, out of which 13,040 have turned out negative, and 833 positive, including 10 persons from other districts. 372 cases are currently active.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Karnataka High Court, seeking a stay on Anand Singh functioning as Minister of Forests, Environment and Ecology contending that there are criminal cases filed against him by the Ministry.

"A stay be granted prohibiting Anand Singh from functioning as the Cabinet Minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology. Any other order that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity," the PIL prays.

The petition, filed by advocate Vijay Kumar, said that the Chief Minister has allocated the portfolio of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology to Singh without considering the fact that there are several criminal faces filed against him by the Ministry.

It said that the allocation of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology portfolio to Singh is in the conflict of interest.

"The holding of the post of Cabinet minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology is against public interest and completely in conflict of interest as he has business for which the subject Ministry is the overseeing authority and further he will also have access to the case files which again is in conflict of interest," the PIL said.

PIL adds that "it is pertinent and absolutely necessary" to deny the incumbent from accessing files related to his cases and from taking any decisions which may provide him with pecuniary benefits through his businesses.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.