Gandhinagar, April 16: A 24-year-old man, who was on run after raping and sodomising a 9-year-old girl in Gujarat's Rajkot district, has been arrested, police said on Monday.
According to a complaint filed by victim's mother Divyaben Madhvi, Kamlesh alias Murli Bharwad lured her daughter into his house and committed the crime.
He has confessed to the crime, a police officer said.
"Also, the culprit confessed to have committed similar act twice about a fortnight ago and threatened the girl not to inform anyone. The accused had also threatened to repeat the act if the victim informed anyone about the act," said Rajkot's Assistant Commissioner of Police Harshad Bhatt.
It was after the victim complained of unbearable pain on Sunday that her mother came to know about the ghastly incident.
Murli has been booked under various sections pertaining to rape and unnatural sex offences under the Indian Penal Code and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, police said.
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.
HC says no coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row, allows video appearance
Bengaluru, May 15 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against singer Sonu Nigam until the next date of hearing, in connection with a recent criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a concert.The court also permitted the singer to appear via video conferencing for recording his statement, if required by the investigating officer (IO). Alternatively, if the IO insists on a physical appearance, the court said the officer could visit Nigam, with the singer bearing the associated expenses.
The case stems from a complaint lodged after an incident at a concert, where some Kannadiga fans had requested Nigam to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly took offence to the tone of the request and reportedly remarked, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” drawing a controversial comparison to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, Nigam’s counsel, Dhananjay Vidyapati, argued that the complaint was filed solely for publicity and that the alleged offence of public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC was not made out.
He also said it was a solitary incident, the concert proceeded smoothly, and the complaint was filed by a third party.
The state counsel, however, maintained that Nigam’s remarks needed to be examined in the course of investigation to determine intent.
“Whether the comments were intentional or not cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 (CrPC). He has not cooperated with the investigation. He could have at least said he was busy,” the State submitted.
Arguing against special privileges, the State’s counsel added, “A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under 482… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement.”
When the court asked why Nigam’s statement could not be recorded virtually or even at his residence, the State objected, saying that would amount to giving the singer “too much convenience.”
Responding to concerns raised by Nigam’s counsel about the media spectacle that would follow a physical appearance, the court observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.”
The court recorded the State’s submission that no coercive steps would be taken if Nigam cooperated with the investigation. It stayed the filing of any final report in the case until the next date of hearing.
