Road accident in Jubail: One from DK dies
Bantwala, June 3: One person hailed from Gudinabali in the taluk died in a road accident in Jubail in Saudi Arabia on Sunday morning.
The deceased is identified as Anvar (26) of Gudinabali near Panemangaluru. On Sunday, Anvar has been to some work in a vehicle. But his vehicle rammed to a pole when Anvar lost control over the vehicle at Jubail. Anvar and two others from Uttar Pradesh were in the vehicle when the incident occurred. All the three were killed on the spot, according to family sources of Anvar.
Anvar was recently married and had been to Saudi Arabia a few days back. His body was kept in the Jubail hospital and his last rites would also be held there only, family sources said.
PFI Bantwala unit president Aizaz condoled the death of Anvar.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Use of 'bhangi', similar words not grounds for SC/ST Act charges: Rajasthan High Court
_vb_07.jpeg)
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that words like "Bhangi," "Neech," "Bhikhari," and "Mangani" are not caste names and their usage does not attract charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Justice Birendra Kumar made this observation while quashing SC/ST Act charges against four individuals accused of using these terms against public servants inspecting alleged encroachments in Jaisalmer in January 2011.
The Court noted that the words used did not refer to any caste and there was no indication that the accused intended to humiliate the public servants based on their caste. The judge further remarked that the alleged actions appeared to be a protest against the officials’ measurement process rather than an act of caste-based discrimination.
The case originated from a criminal complaint lodged after the accused allegedly obstructed officials and used abusive language during an encroachment inspection. Initially, the police found no evidence and filed a negative report. However, a protest petition led the trial court to frame charges under Sections 353, 332, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the accused argued that the petitioners were unaware of the officials' caste and there were no independent witnesses to prove that the incident occurred in public view. The High Court agreed, observing that only the informant and officials were witnesses, with no independent corroboration of the claims.
While discharging the accused from SC/ST Act charges, the Court upheld the charges under IPC Sections 353 and 332, finding prima facie evidence of obstruction and causing hurt to deter public servants from performing their duties.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Leela Dhar Khatri, while Public Prosecutor Surendra Bishnoi appeared for the State.
