Murdering her way to Stardom - Maria Susairaj

Psychopaths!!

i still don't understand how can being in detention be the same as serving a jail term?

Yes detentiion is treated jail if convicted.

Regarding stardom every body wants TRP and hence known faces become stars overnight.

One thing I have noticed that Women/Girls actively are opposing the acquital of the Kannada actress

I seriously think money would have played its part. Anyway this is not the end yet. The case has to go to High Court and then to Supreme Court also. Anywhere the judgment can get overturned.

In the meantime will any lawyer explain to me how a detention can be set off against conviction?  A person is usually detained during the trial process so that he or she does not try to influence the investigation or tamper with the evidence. It is not a punishment. At the worst one can call it simple imprisonment. In many cases it is not even that. See Kalmadi, Kanomozhi et. al. Upon conviction especially in murder related cases the punishment would be rigorous imprisonment. Is there an equation that 3 years’ simple imprisonment = 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment? If so why rigorous imprisonment at all should be there in the statute?

While delivering the judgment, the judge said that Emile Jerome was young and should be available to serve the nation after 7 years. Maria Susairaj is not only young but also bewitchingly beautiful. She can right away serve the nation. During Chanakya’s time there were visha kanyas in spy networks. They were deployed to entice and kill the enemies or to extract secret information..

In such case the woman may be the conspirator as she may have seduced the victim by calling her to the residence and with the help of aide both have kiled the victim and dumped the body to the pieces .now one cannot later saying that there was no 300 pieces or 200 pieces(God forbids...)

The defence of the accussed is very jokeful that she get faint when other accused had killed him? But where her faintness has gone ? when both had dumped his body?

In her defence, she has said that she was threatened by her male accused for not revealing anything. Now from where she has recollect her courage by talking herself to media through an Advocate. She has no qualms that other accused has not got sentenceed to death but merely for 10 years9and 3 years he has already spend in jail)

The whole story has been conspired by herself and her aide. Previously she is responsible for lost of previous life and later she put all the blame on her aide

Now wanna to play the role in kannada pictures and reality shows

This is one of the rarest of rare crime and she definately desrves the death plenaty

Down memory lane it will be remembered to as “Petticoat Terror of the damsel from tinsel town with her hydraulic power paving way to her acquittal”.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO UNINTENTIONAL MURDER?

He

• Killed
• Cut into pieces
• wrapped them in a bag
• Threw him at  a place where no one would find.

if this is unintentional then judges need to review many sentences and reduce the unjustified terms given to the UNINTENTIONAL KILLERS.

neeraj ke maa baap pe qa gujar rahi hogi?

This is a question to lawyers in this forum.

When a judgment is delivered no one can criticise it or attribute any motive to the judge. It will amount to contempt of court and will attract punishment. But the aggrieved party can appeal to a higher court against the judgment. I do not know whether there are any restrictions on what can be stated and what cannot be stated in the appeal. But often when the lower court judgment is overturned, the higher court says that the lower court judge erred in his judgment. But this is only a mild rebuke. What I ask the learned lawyers is whether the higher court can make a stronger statement that will seriously affect the career of the lower court judge or make the situation even worse for him?

@ Dr. MPS Ramani

1. Yes
2. Infact the then Jstc S.N. Dhingra rebuked strongly to two of the lower Court MM / ASJ and
3. Infact one lower court Judge was sent back to Law school too to re-learn the learning.
4. Even Hon'ble SC retired a Judge of the lower Court who was outsourcing his Judgment

etc.


So it is not that all these are unheard of. I have reported allabove in few of my old messages which you can search under forum messages from my profile. 

The judge is bounded by law and it cannot do anything and has to deliver the judgment on the basis of material things placed on records. The Judge can be sympathtic but will consider only those evidences which has brought to reecords and remain helpless on its own views. It is the duty of the prosecution to brought the material things on records in order to get convicted by the court. The Judge remain neutral and onus of the proof is on the prosecution

In Priyadarshani Mattoo case. The ASJ remarked " I KNOW THAT YOU ARE CRIMINAL BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL THINGS CANNOT PERMIT ME TO AWARD ANY SENTENCE" and the accussed person was given benefit of doubt which was convicted by the High Court and was given death sentence and later his death sentence was suspended and was turned into life imprisonment

The judge is bound to give judgment based on material placed before him. There is an assumption here that the material placed before an impartial knowledgeable person will give a conclusion, which would be same as that of another impartial knowledgeable person, just as 2 + 3 = 5 for anybody regardless of who he is.

 If in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case if the lower court was unable to give a sentence, how the High Court, from the same material, could convict the accused. It could mean that the either the lower court judge was not knowledgeable or was looking at things through coloured glasses.

 I am not a lawyer. But what I understand is that evidence for crime must have eyewitnesses in India. This makes the chances of getting punished a remote possibility. There may be no eye-witness, for fear the witness may not come forward or the witness may be bribed or eliminated.

 In USA corroborating evidences without eye-witnesses, but which appear like strange co-incidences  are accepted. Also they follow the jury system. The jury will comprise lay people and they may look at a case in a way that is different from that of the judge.

 Long ago in India also there was a jury trial at least in one case. Commander Nanavati, again of the Indian Navy, shot and killed one Ahuja. The reason was the latter allegedly had illicit relationship with the wife of the former, Sylvia. He took the gun from the Navy, went and shot Ahuja after a heated argument. In that case a jury was appointed. The jury gave a verdict of “not guilty” against Nanavati. The Judge set aside the jury verdict and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. The argument of the jury was somewhat similar to the case of Emile Jerome. Emile Jerome was not acquitted but was given only a lighter sentence.

 The jury verdict was set aside because according to the judgment, the killing was not on sudden provocation and unintentional. The jury may have felt that Ahuja deserved what he got and hence it would have been an emotional verdict not based on law.

Thanks for giving valuable comments. The Jury has given verdict in reagrds to Nananvati case.The supreme court therafter abolished the jury in our country. Jury composed of various intellectuals and judge had to heard them and its judgment relied upon it

In pryadatshani Mattoo case, the death sentence of the accused is suspended as the supreme court itself has averted that there must not be complete reversal of two judgments one court has acquitted and upper court has given death sentence and agrred with the submission of the accused that there was media trail which has been done simultaneously

Media had done significant roles in raising the voice of the middle class as was done in Jessica Lal case in which again accussed person were get acquitted but later get convicted by the High Court. In bothe the cases the High Court has done retrail of hearing on day to day basis and all hostile witnesses were summoned and was chargesheeted

In high profile cases, accussed persons were powerful and used every attempts to make the witness very hostile but in country where the people get active through media , they will get justice. It now proves that law breakers will not be escaped no matter how affluent is there is socity. we can see the examples of Nitish Katea case, priyadarshani case, Jessiaca Lal, Uphar case

Same thing will also be done in this case too

It would not have been that the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because the two lower courts gave contrary verdicts. It is the norm now that death sentence should be awarded only in the rarest of the rare cases, and it is mandatory that all death sentences must go to the Supreme Court, which may confirm, commute or even cancel the sentence. If the Supreme Court was convinced with the arguments of the accused in the Mattoo case, he should have been acquitted.