Two held in Doddaballapur for offering meat with flowers at temple
Doddaballapur: Doddabelavangala police officers have taken into custody two men who had hidden chunks of meat in the garlands they had gotten to Sri Shanimahatme Temple in Kanasavadi on Saturday.
The arrested men have been identified as Kambalahalli Raju of Hoskote taluk and Somashekhar, an auto rickshaw driver from Whitefield, the police have said, adding that the arrested had handed similar garlands, containing meat chunks, to the temple a month ago too.
The temple staff members had received the covers containing the garlands a month earlier. When they opened the covers a couple of hours later, to be used during the prayer rituals, the staff discovered the meat amidst the flowers in the garlands.
The CCTV camera footage showed the accused duo at the temple earlier, yet, the Doddabelavangala police officers had failed to arrest the men.
On Saturday, however, when Raju and Somashekhar revisited the Kanasavadi Temple to deliver the garlands, they were caught red-handed by the temple staff members, who were on watch for the duo.
A case has been registered at the Doddabelavangala Police Station, Bengaluru Rural district, investigation is underway.
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.
