Serial killer 'cyanide' Mohan convicted in 16th murder case
Mangaluru, Sep 22: "Cyanide" Mohan, a serial killer who has murdered several women using the deadly chemical after befriending and raping them, has been convicted of killing another woman a music teacher in Karnataka, taking the total number of his convictions to 16.
Mohan, who has previously been convicted of killing women in public toilets by giving them cyanide capsules, murdered the 33-year-old woman after raping her at a lodge in Bengaluru in May 2007, the prosecution told the Mangaluru district and sessions court.
The woman hailed from Uppala in Kasaragod district of Kerala.
The serial killer had introduced himself to her as Sudhakar Acharya, an employee of the forest department. He gave her a poisonous capsule, telling her it was a contraceptive.
He has used the same modus operandi in all the 20 cases against him, the prosecution submitted to the court.
Judge Sayeedunnisa pronounced Mohan guilty on Friday under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to murder, robbery and punishment for cheating and others, after examining 38 witnesses and 49 exhibits.
The quantum of punishment would be pronounced on September 25.
This was the 16th case in which Mohan has been convicted.
He had been accused of killing a number of women between 2003 and 2009 and had been sentenced to death in three cases and to life imprisonment in others.
In 2017, the Karnataka High Court commuted the capital punishment awarded in one of the cases to life imprisonment till death.
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
