HC stays women commission’s notice against HDK over ‘women going astray remark’
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed a notice issued by the State Commission for Women against former Chief Minister and JD(S) state President HD Kumaraswamy over allegations of insulting women.
A bench headed by Justice M.Nagaprasanna hearing the petition filed by Kumaraswamy stayed the notice issued by the State Commission for Women, and also issued a notice to the Chairperson, Dr. Nagalakshmi Chaudhary, and the Commission.
Justice M Nagaprasanna pointed out that no notice or summons, as permitted by the Karnataka State Commission for Women Act, was given to Kumaraswamy. “A clarification is sought which, on the surface, appears to be beyond its authority,” added.
During the hearing of the application, the lawyer arguing on behalf of HD Kumaraswamy, said that despite the JD(S) leader giving a clarification on his statement on April 15, the Commission issued a notice seeking further clarification.
ALSO READ: Deputy CM DK Shivakumar claims BJP trying to impose Governor's rule in Karnataka
In his plea, Kumaraswamy also alleged the Chairperson of the Commission being biased and acting to gain the goodwill of her political masters and the order was issued in contrary to the Section 7(3) of the Karnataka State Commission for Women Act, which states that all the orders and decisions issued by the Commission shall be authenticated by the Secretary or any other duly authorised officer of the Commission.
Furthermore, Kumaraswamy has also urged the HC to quash the summons and notice issued by the State Women’s Commission.
The JD(S) leader while campaigning in Tumkur's, Turuvekere for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) candidate, V Somanna, is alleged to have said that the rural women were being led astray due to Congress government’s guarantee schemes, which triggered a row.
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.
Broken relationships don't automatically amount to abetment of suicide: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Broken relationships, while emotionally distressing, do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of intention leading to the criminal offence, the Supreme Court on Friday said.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan in a judgement, which overturned the conviction of one Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi by the Karnataka High Court for the offences of cheating and abetment of suicide under the IPC.
"This is a case of a broken relationship, not criminal conduct," the judgment said.
Sanadi was initially charged under Sections 417 (cheating), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 376 (rape) of the IPC.
While the trial court acquitted him of all the charges, the Karnataka High Court, on the state's appeal, convicted him of cheating and abetment of suicide, sentencing him to five years imprisonment and imposing Rs 25,000 in fine.
According to the FIR registered at the mother's instance, her 21-year-old daughter was in love with the accused for the past eight years and died by suicide in August, 2007, after he refused to keep his promise to marry.
Writing a 17-page judgement, Justice Mithal analysed the two dying declarations of the woman and noted that neither was there any allegation of a physical relationship between the couple nor there was any intentional act leading to the suicide.
The judgement therefore underlined broken relationships were emotionally distressing, but did not automatically amount to criminal offences.
"Even in cases where the victim dies by suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim," said the apex court.
The court further said, "Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
The judgement said there was no evidence to suggest that the man instigated or provoked the woman to die by suicide and underscored a mere refusal to marry, even after a long relationship, did not constitute abetment.
