Over 25 years after the deadly gas leak at Union Carbide plant here in December 1984, which killed over 20,000 people and critically wounded hundreds of thousands others, Bhopal’s chief judicial magistrate, Mr Mohan P. Tiwari, on Monday delivered judgment in the criminal case that followed, sentencing all seven accused, including the then Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) chief Keshub Mahindra to two years in jail under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs 1 lakh each.
While convicting the accused, the CJM’s court also granted bail to all those convicted on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and a security of like amount.
Besides 85-year-old Mahindra, now chairman of automotive firm Mahindra and Mahindra, the six others from UCIL (now defunct) sentenced on Monday include its then managing director V.P. Gokhale, then vice-president Kishore Kamdar, then Bhopal plant works manager J. Mukund, plant production manager S.P. Choudhary, plant superintendent K.V. Shetty and plant production assistant Shakeel Qureshi. Another accused, the then assistant works manager R.B. Roy Chaudhary, died in the course of the trial.
But 89-year-old Warren Anderson, chairman of Union Carbide Corporation (UCIL’s parent company) at the time of the disaster, who was named the main accused days after the gas leak, appears to have gone scot-free for now. He did not subject himself to trial and is still an absconder. There was no word about him in Monday’s order.
The CJM’s court also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakhs against UCIL under Section 304-A IPC. All the accused were also sentenced to three months’ jail and fined Rs 250 each under Section 336 IPC; to six months’ jail and a fine of Rs 500 each under Section 337 IPC; and one-year jail and a fine of Rs 1,000 each under Section 338 IPC. The company has been sentenced to pay the same fine under Sections 336, 337 and 338 IPC.
The CJM has given all those convicted a month’s time to file appeals, if any.
Showing posts with label jail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jail. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Is justice blind?
Labels:
(SSC),
1984,
bail,
Bhopal,
Chief Keshub Mahindra,
deadly gas leak,
December,
jail,
Justice,
UCIL,
Union Carbide plant
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Jail for molester DG
Former Haryana DGP Shambhu Pratap Singh Rathore is finally in jail for molesting 14-year-old schoolgirl Ruchika Girhotra in August 1990 after a Chandigarh court on Tuesday confirmed his conviction by the trial court and enhanced his original jail term from six to 18 months.
Additional district and sessions judge Gurbir Singh directed the CBI to take him into custody. Exulted Ruchika’s father Subhash Chander Girhotra: “This evil man (who) tormented and drove my daughter to her death is actually being arrested and sent to jail!”
The former DGP tried to avoid jail, saying he had to go to a hospital as he was unwell.
But the judge said the jail authorities would decide on his hospitalisation.
Additional district and sessions judge Gurbir Singh directed the CBI to take him into custody. Exulted Ruchika’s father Subhash Chander Girhotra: “This evil man (who) tormented and drove my daughter to her death is actually being arrested and sent to jail!”
The former DGP tried to avoid jail, saying he had to go to a hospital as he was unwell.
But the judge said the jail authorities would decide on his hospitalisation.
Labels:
(SSC),
jail,
molester DG,
Ruchika
Monday, May 17, 2010
Let accused pay up if victim wants: SC
The Supreme Court, dealing with two vital criminal jurisprudence questions, in rulings considered unconventional by existing legal standards, held that in a case where punishment with a jail term cannot mitigate the suffering of a victim in economic offences, the accused could be asked to pay compensation to ensure “total justice”.
On the second question, on eyewitnesses in murder cases, the court held that the testimony of witnesses who are close relatives of the victim cannot be “discarded” merely because they might testify against the accused in revenge to ensure he gets harsher punishment.
Answering these questions in two separate judgments, a bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu said: “Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead, directing the accused to pay ... compensation to the victim can ensure delivery of total justice.”
The only condition while invoking Section 357(3) CrPC was to see if the accused was in a position to pay compensation. This section empowers courts to impose adequate compensation on the accused for an offence which causes financial loss to the victim.
The bench felt that sending the accused to jail in such cases would be of no help to the victim.
On the second question, on eyewitnesses in murder cases, the court held that the testimony of witnesses who are close relatives of the victim cannot be “discarded” merely because they might testify against the accused in revenge to ensure he gets harsher punishment.
Answering these questions in two separate judgments, a bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu said: “Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead, directing the accused to pay ... compensation to the victim can ensure delivery of total justice.”
The only condition while invoking Section 357(3) CrPC was to see if the accused was in a position to pay compensation. This section empowers courts to impose adequate compensation on the accused for an offence which causes financial loss to the victim.
The bench felt that sending the accused to jail in such cases would be of no help to the victim.