I am misfortune’s boon,
I am rainy sunny noon,
I am darkroom lit by moon,
I am snow for you in June,
I am tears in your smile,
I am undiscovered isle,
I am walk down the green mile
I am life for you a while,
I am broken man’s only hope,
I am convict’s hanging rope,
I am part of a violent mob,
I am nonexistent place on globe.
I am unclaimed piece of land,
I am digging up a diamond in sand,
I am living in wonderland
I am Alice’s best friend.
Inspiration: Gin Soaked Boy – Divine Comedy
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Three in the same week…
Last week was full of action for Indian judiciary and outcomes were exemplary by all means. High profiles getting convicted isn’t something that is normal in India, it rarely happens. Indian judicial system has been severely criticized in recent times for its tied hand approach in dealing with high profile cases and in the backdrop of that criticism last week was probably a sigh of relief for people who have lost their faith in the system.
As a pure coincidence, Shibhu Soren (A high profile tribal politician, ex-minister), Sanjay Dutt (One of the top actors in Indian film industry, called Bollywood), and our own Navjot Singh Sidhu (ex cricketer, man who spiced up the way cricket is commentated), all three were convicted last week. Soren was facing charges of murder, Sidhu was charged under Section 304 (2) of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)and Sanjay was charged under terrorism prevention and arms act. It was especially amazing to see CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) seeking capital punishment for Soren for masterminding his personal assistance’s murder.
So is this a turn around for Indian judicial system? I honestly don’t think so, primarily because judiciary is dependent on legal and investigation framework to arrive upon a judgment. Being born and brought up in a lawyer family, I know for sure that judicial system has far more loop holes to be plugged at grass root levels. We can probably blame judiciary for not delivering most obvious verdict or we can burn thousands of candles at India gate but the fact is that if an investigating agency or attorney has decided to take the case off track, judicial system is going to find it difficult to see the obvious. Take for example Priyadarshani Matoo's case, while delivering the judgment lower court judge made a hopeless statement that though he knew that the Santosh is the man who committed the crime, he was forced to acquit him, giving him the benefit of doubt. Years later, Santosh has been given capital sentence in the same case, only thing which probably changed from the last time was the way prosecution and police presented the case during retrial.
So will we ever be able to tighten our police, investigation and legal system so that judiciary can deliver decision based on what actually happened rather than what was told in a court room by bunch of setup evidences, investigating squads and piles of reports?
As a pure coincidence, Shibhu Soren (A high profile tribal politician, ex-minister), Sanjay Dutt (One of the top actors in Indian film industry, called Bollywood), and our own Navjot Singh Sidhu (ex cricketer, man who spiced up the way cricket is commentated), all three were convicted last week. Soren was facing charges of murder, Sidhu was charged under Section 304 (2) of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)and Sanjay was charged under terrorism prevention and arms act. It was especially amazing to see CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) seeking capital punishment for Soren for masterminding his personal assistance’s murder.
So is this a turn around for Indian judicial system? I honestly don’t think so, primarily because judiciary is dependent on legal and investigation framework to arrive upon a judgment. Being born and brought up in a lawyer family, I know for sure that judicial system has far more loop holes to be plugged at grass root levels. We can probably blame judiciary for not delivering most obvious verdict or we can burn thousands of candles at India gate but the fact is that if an investigating agency or attorney has decided to take the case off track, judicial system is going to find it difficult to see the obvious. Take for example Priyadarshani Matoo's case, while delivering the judgment lower court judge made a hopeless statement that though he knew that the Santosh is the man who committed the crime, he was forced to acquit him, giving him the benefit of doubt. Years later, Santosh has been given capital sentence in the same case, only thing which probably changed from the last time was the way prosecution and police presented the case during retrial.
So will we ever be able to tighten our police, investigation and legal system so that judiciary can deliver decision based on what actually happened rather than what was told in a court room by bunch of setup evidences, investigating squads and piles of reports?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)