Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Can't Ignore State's Negligence, Should've Provided Security: SC On Judge Uttam Anand's Killing

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sat, Aug 21, 21, 17:12, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3665
Uttam Anand who was an Additional District Judge (ADJ) posted in Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine

It must be stated right at the outset that the ghastly manner in which an upright, dedicated, determined and disciplined Judge named Uttam Anand who was an Additional District Judge (ADJ) posted in Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence. He was taken to hospitals by locals where he died.

It goes without saying that the whole nation has been caught by surprise and utter disbelief! It was initially believed to be an accident. But the video footage that was accessed and emerged later has made it crystal clear that the three wheeler which rammed him from behind while he was jogging on a deserted stretch of road in Dhanbad was done deliberately, dastardly and determinedly with clear aim to kill him! If this is not a direct assault on judiciary then what else is?

It must be underscored that the judiciary has to deal with this sensitive case on a war footing and must make sure that the culprits are not spared under any circumstances and are brought to book at the earliest! If time is wasted and for years the killers are not brought to book, it will greatly damage the unflinching faith of the people in the judiciary and even create fear among Judges that if they are killed the system also will ensure that the killers are not punished most promptly! This our nation cannot afford at any cost and so strict action has to be taken against the killers! No denying it!

Needless to say, ADJ Uttam Anand was dealing with sensitive cases involving dreaded criminals and so he was targeted as he had refused to buckle under any pressure from anyone! This alone explains why even Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh himself mentioned the incident before the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and said that probe into the killing of a senior judicial officer must be entrusted to the CBI. Vikas Singh minced just no words to say it upright that the Judge was targeted for denying bail to a gangster and that amounted to 'a brazen attack on independence of judiciary'.

Who can deny or dispute what Vikas Singh has said who has an impecaable reputation and is not just a senior and eminent lawyer of Supreme Court having an experience of more than 30 years but is also the President of Supreme Court Bar Association and in past also was President and also former Additional Solicitor General of India from 2005 to 2008? He was designated a senior advocate way back in 2004. Vikas Singh further also added that the video of the incident was taken by someone who had prior knowledge of the attack.

Truth be told, after listening to Vikas Singh, the CJI NV Ramana said that he has himself spoken to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court who has taken up the matter on the judicial side. No doubt, even the CJI NV Ramana is himself quite concerned over this most ghastly incident in Dhanbad district of Jharkhand where an ADJ is murdered in broad day light by crashing a three heeler on him from behind! Jharkhand High Court has now taken suo moto cognizance of the incident. Very rightly so!

While emphasizing that it is the State's obligation to protect Judges to ensure that they can discharge their duties fearlessly, the Supreme Court on July 30, 2021 registered on its own a public interest litigation over the death of an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Jharkhand named Uttam Anand who was fatally knocked down by a vehicle. A Bench of Apex Court headed by CJI NV Ramana and also comprising of Justice Surya Kant took suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of the death of judicial officer Uttam Anand and sought explanations from Jharkhand's Chief Secretary and Director General of Police (DGP) within a week.

While registering the suo motu case as In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad)', the Court termed the incident 'unfortunate' adding that:
This gruesome incident has been widely reported in newspapers and video clippings of the incident are also being circulated on social media platforms, suggesting that it was not a case of simplicitor road accident. The court said in its order that:
Having regard to the seriousness of the issue and its larger ramifications, we direct the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, State of Jharkhand to jointly submit a status report of inquiry vis-à-vis the sad demise of the judicial officer, Shri Uttam Anand, with the registery of this court within a week's time.

Adding more to it, the Bench said that it was aware of the suo motu proceedings already initiated by the Jharkhand High Court a day ago into the incident and clarified that the High Court should continue monitoring the matter there. The Bench also added that:
However we want to be appraised of the status of investigation. The Court also requested Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist it.

It cannot be glossed over that the Apex Court Bench also noted with concern that:
It has been brought to the notice of this court that similar incidents are happening across the country. Taking into consideration the duty and obligation of the State to create an environment and accord full protection to judicial officers as well as the legal fraternity so that they can perform their duties fearlessly, we deem it appropriate to take up this matter suo motu.

Truth be told, the Apex Court Bench observed that the State's negligence in the recent killing of Judge Uttam Anand who was posted as Additional District and Session Judge at Dhanbad cannot be ignored. The Bench opined that, being well aware that Dhanbad is a mafia area where several advocates have been killed and Judges have been attacked in the past, the State should have provided some protection to the judicial officer at least around their colonies. The Bench then very rightly lamented that:
Look at the unfortunate case of Judge who lost his life. And you can't ignore the State's negligence. It is State's failure. They know Dhanbad is a mafia area and we have several advocates were killed and Judges have been attacked. This is nothing new. Inspite of this, the State Government hasn't done anything. They must provide securities at least near by the colonies.

No doubt, the Bench therefore very rightly asked all States to respond and file a status report with respect to what kind of security they have provided to judicial officers. The Bench had earlier underscored in its order that:
As there is an urgent need for wider consideration and consequential detailed explanation(s) by all concerned, we will consider the desirability of issuing notice to all other states and Union territories on the next day of hearing. It must be apprised here that Attorney General KK Venugopal whose assistance the Apex Court Bench sought also in the present matter submitted most aptly that, Judges as a class are more vulnerable than bureaucrats. This is an open court where one person succeeds and other doesn't. There has to be given sufficient protection. There has to be a body which decides the extent of vulnerability depending on nature of cases. It is time that something serious is done, for vulnerability of Judges, specially those deciding famous cases.

Of course, the Bench then also made a very significant observation that:
There are several cases in the country which involves gangsters. Some cases have high profile people are involved as accused. In some states, the judicial officers including High Court Judges are threatened not physically but also mentally by sending abusive messages. This is a new trend in this country. When high-profile people don't get favourable orders, they start maligning the Judges on all forums. The Advocate General of Jharkhand Rajiv Ranjan informed the Bench that the government ha immediately constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter. He added that on the same day of the crime, the SIT had apprehended two persons who were in the auto-rickshaw which knocked down Judge Uttam Anand while he was on his morning jog. The Advocate General also said that the CBI has taken over the investigation pursuant to a recommendation made by the State Government. The matter will be next considered on August 9.

To put things in perspective, the CJI NV Ramana also told Attorney General KK Venugopal who was called by the Bench for assistance that:
In one or two places, the court ordered a CBI inquiry. I am very sorry to say that the CBI has done nothing. I think we have expected some changes in CBI's attitude. But there is no change in the attitude of the CBI. I am sorry to observe this but this is the situation. The Court asked the Attorney General to take personal interest in the issue so that the judiciary could get some help from the investigating agencies.

It is high time and now CBI too must pursue this high profile murder case of ADJ Uttam Anand with full vigour and make sure that the real truth comes out before the people. The CJI has directly questioned the CBI in not helping judiciary at all and so it must pull up its socks and get going full hog in this case. The probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by ADG Sanjay Anand Lathkar is being monitored directly by Jharkhand High Court and the team are tight-lipped about the progress of the probe. The SIT has set up 11 teams to probe all aspects of the crime by scanning call detail records of the accused, obtaining details of the persons who were close to the spot through mobile numbers active in that particular area at the time of the incident and identifying the person who passed by on a bike just after the incident. The biker allegedly tried to stop the autorickshaw at next crossing. The police team also interrogated the roadside shop owner where the auto driver and the passenger took liquor and the medicine shop from where they purchased a tablet. Truth must come out and one fervently hopes that all those who are behind this despicable, dastardly and deadly murder are brought to book soon and punished most strictly at the earliest! Under no circumstances should the culprits escape somehow and even those who masterminded it must be brought to book at the earliest! One fervently hopes that constant monitoring and strict supervision by the Apex Court Bench led by CJI NV Ramana and also the Jharkhand High Court will bring about the desired results soon!

It is a sad commentary on the existing state of affairs in our country that when an upright officer of court like ADJ Uttam Anand is brutally murdered in broad daylight then we don't witness any demonstrations of any kind by MPs and MLAs but if their phones are tapped then they are on their feets and misbehave most shamelessly even in Parliament itself and throw papers, snatch papers from Ministers and tear it up as we saw! Not just this we see how even foreign countries like US and UK who have nothing to do over what happens in our country try their best to jump in and fish in troubled waters and indulge in their usual India bashing and Centre bashing! Most disgusting!

This begs the moot question: Why should anyone get disturbed if one has nothing to hide from the public? It is wrong and illegal to tap phone but why politicians over the issue of privacy are most agitated and so sensitive that they start beating their chest over it! But, on the contrary, when a Judge is brutally murdered no one cares to even mention it once in Parliament or call a special session of Parliament to discuss it?

It is a no brainer that this is because they consider it a very trivial issue for which they should not get perturbed! It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that if our lawmakers in Parliament care a damn for the safety of our Judges then even God cannot save our country from turning into lawlessness where anarchy, criminals and mafias prevail and for this politicians cannot exonerate themselves from their liability nor can the Judges themselves nor the police who investigates the case as we will now be seeing in case of the departed great soul named Uttam Anand who was a very young and promising Judge and had lot to offer to our country but criminals didn't allow him to do so! Most unfortunate, most shameful and most disgraceful!

Bluntly put: Why was the security of this young, dynamic and upright ADJ named Uttam Anand compromised? Why do we see that our lawmakers scream over tapping of phones but when Judge gets brutally murdered then they don't consider it worthy enough to even discuss it in Parliament and vow to punish most strictly those culprits who carried out the most dastardly, cowardly and ghastly act? This has to change if we want our country to progress, prosper and become powerful!

It needs no Albert Einstein to conclude that our Judges have to be safeguarded from violent attacks because if this is not done then Judges will fear for their personal safety and procrastinate in front of powerful criminals and this we see also to some extent in our country even though many Judges are still upright and one such Judge named Uttam Anand we saw being brutally murdered in broad daylight! This should never have happened but it has happened in Jharkhand! One only fervently hopes that the culprits are quickly brought to justice and all those who are behind it are also brought to book and are not left scot free under any circumstances!

Of course, the brutal, brash and brazen murder of upright Judges as we see in the current case can never be taken lying down for if this is taken lying down then we will definitely witness many more such incidents in the coming days as the criminals will get more emboldened due to the inaction of the police and the judiciary if they fail to act in time! Can this be allowed to happen under any circumstances? Certainly not!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top