Dismayed with our wrestlers being manhandled: Anil Kumble
New Delhi, May 30: The legendary Anil Kumble on Tuesday said he is "dismayed" by the treatment meted out to the protesting wrestlers at Jantar Mantar where they were manhandled and detained by police for trying to march towards the new Parliament building and hold a 'Mahila Mahapanchayat'.
Unprecedented scenes of police dragging Olympic and world championships medallists, including Sakshi Malik, Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia, were witnessed on Sunday when the wrestlers and their supporters breached the security cordon during their march to protest the inaction against outgoing WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh for his alleged sexual harassment of women grapplers.
The wrestlers had called for a 'Mahila Mahapanchayat' at the new Parliament building at a time when it was being inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
They tried to march towards the new Parliament building despite the Delhi Police not giving them the permission to do so, resulting in their detention.
Leg-spinner Kumble, 52, felt the issue could have been resolved through dialogue.
"Dismayed to hear about what transpired on the 28th of May with our wrestlers being manhandled. Anything can be resolved through proper dialogue. Hoping for a resolution at the earliest," tweeted Kumble, the fourth-highest wicket-taker in Test cricket, on Tuesday.
Olympic champion shooter Abhinav Bindra, Indian football captain Sunil Chhetri and former India all-rounder Irfan Pathan too had expressed solidarity with the grapplers on Monday.
On Tuesday, the wrestlers along with hundreds of their supporters reached Haridwar to immerse the medals won on the world stage, including the Olympics, in the Ganga river but were persuaded by the khaps and farmer leaders to wait for a few more days to address their grievances.
Dismayed to hear about what transpired on the 28th of May with our wrestlers being manhandled. Anything can be resolved through proper dialogue. Hoping for a resolution at the earliest.
— Anil Kumble (@anilkumble1074) May 30, 2023
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.
SC orders release of prisoner after 25 years, recognises him as a minor at time of offence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 8) ordered the release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for nearly 25 years after determining he was a juvenile at the time of the offence in 1994.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar found that the appellant, Om Prakash, was only 14 years old when the offence occurred.
Om Prakash, initially sentenced to death for murder, had raised the plea of juvenility during the sentencing stage. However, the trial court dismissed his claim, citing his statement under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the fact that he held a bank account. The High Court upheld this judgment, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the death sentence.
Later, Om Prakash filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court, presenting a school certificate indicating his minor status at the time of the offence. The State of Uttarakhand also certified his age as 14 years at the time. Despite this, the curative petition was dismissed.
In 2012, his mercy petition to the President resulted in the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, with a condition that he would remain incarcerated until he turned 60. Subsequently, an ossification test confirmed his age as 14 at the time of the crime. He also obtained information under the RTI Act showing that minors could open bank accounts. In 2019, he challenged the Presidential order in the High Court of Uttarakhand, which dismissed his plea, citing the limited scope of judicial review over Presidential orders. He then appealed this judgment in the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court sought updated instructions from the State regarding its earlier admission in the curative petition about his juvenility. The State reaffirmed that he was a minor at the time of the offence.
The Court observed that injustice had been inflicted at every stage due to the failure of the judiciary to address the appellant's juvenility plea. Justice Sundresh, authoring the judgment, stated that the reliance on Om Prakash's statement under s. 313 of CrPC was erroneous, particularly when the statement itself suggested he was only 14 years old at the time of the crime.
The Court criticised the High Court for ignoring s. 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, which permits juvenility claims to be raised at any stage. It also noted that the appellant had suffered prolonged incarceration due to judicial errors, depriving him of the opportunity to reintegrate into society.
Ordering his immediate release, the Court clarified that its judgment was not a review of the 2012 Presidential order but the application of the 2015 Act to a deserving individual. It directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate his rehabilitation and reintegration, including access to welfare schemes for livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State was also instructed to assist him in availing these schemes.
Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar represented the appellant, with legal assistance provided by Project 39A of National Law University Delhi. ASG KM Nataraj appeared for the State.
