Youth gouges out father’s eye with car key for not handing over property

News Network
August 29, 2018

Bengaluru, Aug 29: In a shocking incident, a youth gouged out his father’s eye with a set of car keys after a clash over a property dispute yesterday in the city.

The accused Abhishek Chethan (35) was arrested by the police while his father S S Parameshwar was admitted a hospital after the coldblooded attack.

According to police the son had been pressuring his father to sign over a property in JP Nagar to him. “The accused entered his father’s house at Shakambari Nagar on Tuesday morning while he was performing a ceremony to mark one month of his wife’s death and attacked him,” said a police officer.

Parameshwar was badly injured as his son allegedly gouged out one of his eyes with the keys and damaged the other.

Abhishek then allegedly pushed his father down and tried to escape. However, the neighbours heard the screams of a family member and when Abhishek tried to flee, they chased him, nabbed him and handed him over to the police.

He has been arrested on the charge of attempt to murder. The neighbours took Parmeshwar, who was bleeding profusely, to a hospital in an autorickshaw. “Doctors told us that they are trying to restore partial eyesight,” said the police.

Abhishek, who works in an automobile company, is the oldest of three children, and lived on the second floor of a building owned by his father.

Parameshwar resided on the first floor. According to the police, soon after their mother passed away last month, Abhishek allegedly got into a fight with his younger brother.

He wanted a house in J P Nagar to be given to him, even though his father had refused his past requests. On Tuesday morning, he visited his father to discuss the matter. Parameshwar opposed his claim, and in a fit of rage, Abhishek allegedly punched his father with a key and gouged out his right eye-ball. He then punched his left eye,” said the police.

Comments

Ramprasad
 - 
Wednesday, 29 Aug 2018

Better to change father's will paper and nominee name. Son should not be there in paper

Ibrahim
 - 
Wednesday, 29 Aug 2018

Son should be punished by giving life long compensation

Kumar
 - 
Wednesday, 29 Aug 2018

Should punish him equally and the son should earn and take care his father. Police should verify that

Danish
 - 
Wednesday, 29 Aug 2018

Is that youth own son to the victim..!Strange

 

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
June 23,2020

Mangaluru, Jun 23: An elderly person, who was undergoing treatment for covid-19 in Mangaluru, breathed his last on today. 

The victim, identified by number P-6282, was a 70-year-old man. He had returned from Bengaluru on June 7. 

He was suffering asthma and pneumonia. He had Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) symptoms and was hence admitted to the designated covid-19 hospital in Mangaluru on June 12. 

His condition continued to worsen and today he breathed his last, sources said.

With this the total number the deaths of covid-19 patients in Dakshina Kannada district mounted to 9.

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
May 16,2020

Bengaluru, May 16: At least 23 new COVID-19 positive cases have emerged in the past 19 hours, raising Karnataka''s tally to 1,079, a health official said on Saturday.

"New cases reported from Friday 5 p.m. to Saturday noon are 23," said the official.

Among the 1,079 cases, 548 are active and isolated in designated hospitals across the state, 494 patients got discharged and 36 died of the virus.

In the past 19 hours, cases spiked in Benglaluru Urban, the place hosting the highest number of coronavirus cases in the state.

Of the new cases, Bengaluru Urban reported 14 cases, followed by 3 in Hassan and Mandya, Ballari, Bagalkote, Davangere, Dharwad and Udupi, 1 each.

All the 14 cases, men, from Bengaluru Urban were secondary contacts of positive case 653.

All Hassan, Dharwad and Bagalkote cases had a history of inter-state travel to Mumbai, Maharashtra, India''s largest sufferer of Covid.

A 46-year-old man from Ballari had a travel history to Ahmedabad in Gujarat, another major COVID-19 hotspot state in India.

A 40-year-old man from Mandya had inter-district travel history to Kolar and Bengaluru.

A 1-year-old infant girl from Udupi had international travel history to Dubai.

Among the new cases, 15 are contacts of earlier cases.

Of the all cases, 20 are men and three women.

Only four of the 23 cases are above 50 and 18 below 40.

Of the 1,079 cases, 12 per cent patients were senior citizens, 66 per cent men and 34 per cent women with a discharge rate of 44 per cent.

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.
coastaldigest.com news network
February 14,2020

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.

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.