Documnet on Discharge argument in Criminal case

Dear Scientist,

Whether you commit crime or not if there is any complaint against you as an Indian Citizen you should face the "due process" of indian law.   Because you are living in the great country in the world.   Please don't aske me what is due process in india.  Read below...

3. After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was being acquitted, the learned ASJ concluded:

“This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears. They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials.”

“I consider that this is an eye-opener case, which reveals the manner in which police lets off real culprits and falsely implicates innocent persons, who dare ask for justice or who want erring police officials to be brought to book. The police torture of Prempal has converted him into a living corpse. It is a case which shows that police force has persons of criminal character in it, who are out to damage the whole institution and needed to be weeded out. It is recommended that all police officials who were involved in framing Prempal in different cases be given exemplary punishment and Prempal be adequately compensated for loss of valuable years of life and wrongful imprisonment for several years and his harassment for 15 years and physical and mental torture. Copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police, New Delhi for necessary action.”

The Delhi High Court on Thursday awarded a compensation of Rs 5.62 lakh to a person, who was falsely implicated in 18 criminal cases by the police.

Prempal had sought a compensation of Rs 60 lakh from the Delhi Police for implicating him in 18 false cases between 1991 and 2007. But he got only a fraction of his claims.

The court directed Delhi Police commissioner Y. S. Dadwal to compensate the victim as well as tender a written apology to the victim and his family for their suffering.

"If the confidence has to be restored among the citizenry that the police are meant to protect their rights, then such an expression of contrition by those at the helm is imperative," the court said.

The court asked Dadwal to review the criminal cases pending against Prempal and asked him to take a decision within four weeks on whether these cases needed to be pursued against him.

Prempal was slapped with the cases because he had dared to take on the local policemen after they refused to return his household goods recovered from robbers.>

"It started in 1991 when I filed an FIR of theft at my house. The police after arresting the accused and recovering the household goods did not return it. I took on the police and registered a case against them. After that a vigilance inquiry was done and the officials were suspended," "In revenge, the police destroyed 15 years of my life and my family by implicating me in false cases but could not prove any of the cases," he added.

Out of the 18 cases, he was acquitted in 13 after facing a prolonged trial. However in five cases, the police managed to get him convicted, which included four cases of theft and one under the Arms Act.

Prempal moved the high court in 2006 against the Delhi Police for falsely implicating him in a rape case of a minor girl in 2002.

The police accused him of raping the daughter of his landlord as he was having frequent quarrels with him. He was arrested, tortured in custody and suffered incarceration in jail for nearly seven years. Prempal was acquitted by a trial court in September 2004.

The trial court in its order had stated that the police officers involved in framing the case against Prempal should be given exemplary punishment, but the Delhi Police did not abide by it.

"I consider this as an eye-opener case, which reveals the manner in which police lets off real culprits and falsely implicates innocent persons, who dare ask for justice or who want erring police officers to be brought to book," the court observed.

"The torture of Prempal has converted him into a living corpse. It is a case which shows that the police force has persons of criminal character in it, who are out to damage the whole institution and need to be weeded out," the court added.

In all the five cases in which Prempal was convicted, the FIRs were lodged at the Sangam Vihar police station.

Four out of the five cases in which he was convicted were registered in 1999 under sections 457/ 380/ 411 of IPC related to trespass and house break- in by night to commit offence. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months in each of the cases. However, Prempal was acquitted in seven similar cases.

The fifth conviction was under sections 25/ 27/ 54 and 59 of the Arms Act in which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and was fined Rs 100. But he was acquitted in three other cases under the Arms Act.

Prempal was also acquitted in a case (FIR No 117/ 1991) where he was charged under sections 302/ 34 IPC. The Sangam Vihar police not only implicated him but also his son Sanjay and his wife. The court expressed surprise over the Delhi Police continuing to dub Prempal as a " hardened criminal". " Despite so many acquittals, the Delhi Police continue to dub him as a hardened criminal, this is an appellation that is at once unfair and unjustified.

The most precious years of his life were spent in trying to defend himself against these false cases," Justice S. Murlidhar said.

"What is disconcerting is the number of cases registered at the same police station and the ordeal that Prempal has had to undergo over several years to get relieved of the cases," he added.

Case Record:
18 false cases slapped against him
5 cases in which he was convicted
7 years Prempal had to spend in jail
Rs 5.62 lakh compensation awarded to him by the Delhi High Court
Rs 60 lakh compensation he had claimed for the harassment meted out to him

Hi,

Please send your comments.

1. Hon’ble court failed to notice (based on the documents, from petitioner worked hospital, submitted on 15-04-2010 as part of memorandum) that petitioner has earning experience of equal amount that the Hon’ble court ordered as interim maintenance even before and after the petitioner’s marriage till petitioner joined the respondent at Bangalore for less than a month. 
2. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the bank transaction of amount approximately Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent to petitioner after marriage and before petitioner joined the matrimonial home (refer: point no.26 in counter filed on 18-12-2009 in MC.CCC of 2009). Further submit Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the transaction (from respondent to petitioner) proofs in support of this ground. Further submit that while petitioner is having amount in her bank account received from respondent provide information that prima facie case is not made out.
3. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the letter received from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, under Right To Information Act-2005 saying that the petitioners allegations are said to be false based on the evidences submitted to police. Further submit that Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that this letter discloses no prima face case of cruelty is established.
4. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the respondent argument, in the written submitted on 26-03-2010, that petitioner is rich person and is owner of Rs.40,00,000/- worth agriculture land as admitted in the petition, while respondent do not have any property on him name. Further submit this Hon’ble Court failed to notice that petitioner did not disclose the income from the huge worth agriculture property. 
5. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the respondent argument that petitioner is capable of working but willingly not doing job and doing Post Graduation by spending more than Rs.2,00,000/- per year, in total more than Rs.4,00,000/- for the entire course without respondent consent reveals the petitioner has no issues in maintaining herself even without working for money to maintain herself. 
6. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner is capable of working and has working and earning experience prior to and after marriage i.e., petitioner joined the respondent at Bangalore. Further submit that Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the documentary proofs, collected from petitioner worked hospital and submitted in this Hon’ble court on 15-04-2010 in support of this ground.  
7. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the fact that no evidence is submitted in support of petitioner’s allegations though possible to produce upon the allegations is true reveals the prima face case is false.
8. Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the point that respondent is interested to lead life with petitioner and would like to maintain petitioner.  
9. Hon’ble court failed to notice that petitioner joined the respondent after 6 months to the marriage and did not meet the responsibilities of wife and is asking for maintenance from respondent. Further submit that the order made the respondent to fell that this is the punishment for marriage.