Will campaign against Pramod Madhwaraj’s scam in the constituency: RTI Activist Abraham TJ
Udupi: RTI Activist Abraham TJ on Saturday added that he will campaign against the JD(S) Udupi-Chikmagalur Lok Sabha Constituency Candidate Pramod Madhwaraj, who he alleged had availed loan of Rs. 193 crores but has showed his wealth to be only one crore on papers.
In March 2018, Abraham had filed a complaint in Finance Ministry that Madhwaraj had availed loan of Rs. 193 crores from Syndicate Bank’s Malpe branch. Pramod had then filed a defamation suit in Udupi court in the matter.
Speaking to reporters after appearing before the court in the case Abraham said “I will highlight this issue throughout the constituency and urge people to vote anybody except Madhwaraj. The man who loots the country should not go to Parliament”.
“This is personal decision, not affiliated to any party. I will take this opportunity of election against Madhwaraj who used the court against me”
“He filed defamation case against me to harass me, he has violated my human right. Now it is time to pay back, I will teach him the lesson during the election. I am also preparing to file criminal case against him, I have all the data against him which will bring all his deeds in public” he added.
“I have been attending the court regularly. This is the 11th time I have appeared before court while Madhwaraj has given the hearing a miss on many occasions. Last time the court had compulsorily asked Madhwaraj to be present today but he again did not appear. Now the court has asked him to be present during next hearing” he said while briefing about the case progress.
The court has now posted the next hearing on May 4.
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.
