English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Judge Loya death case: CJI says there will be ground for suspicion if Section 174 CrPC has not been duly complied with

Published

on

supreme court

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud on Monday (February 12) continued hearing the plea seeking independent probe into the mysterious death of Justice B G Loya who was handling the Sohrabuddin Seikh fake encounter killing case.

In Monday (February 19) senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Maharashtra, continued his defence.

He said that the whole of 30th, they (the judges) stayed in Nagpur AND MOVED TO Ravi Bhawan that night. At night the judge (Loya) had complained of distress and was rushed to Dande hospital where they spent 15-20 minutes and an ECG was taken.

Waikar also reaches there, continued Rohatgi. “There they met Dr Pankaj Harkutt who is a cardiologist and are advised to go to Medetirina which is 2-2.5 km from there. Unfortunately at the next hospital he was declared “brought dead”, hence he did not die in Medetirina.

“If we had to discount everything what the four judges said then we have the postmortem report. The postmortem was done in a government hospital and then the body was taken to Ghategaon,” he said.

Then Rohatgi was back at castigating the published article. He said: “The intention behind the appearance of the article is questionable itself.” He referred to page 19 and submitted the Marathi version first. “Whatever is written in the article appears to be false and unverified, which appeared three years after the death.”

Then Rohatgi read out a postmortem report – Department of Forensic Science, Govt of India, Nagpur report. “As per police, at 1:12 am he suddenly complained of chest pain. At 4:00 am, he was brought to the hospital and was declared dead.”

Also, the report talks about the jurisdiction of the police station. The main centre for the postmortem is Sitamarhi. Then the counsel submitted various angles of the reason why any particular hospital was chosen.

At the bottom of the page is the nakal bayan (or witness) who is Prashant Rathi. The time of death is 16:00 hours. Whereas in item 1, the time of death was 4:00 hours.

The bill of Medetirina is referred to, wherein Dr Pankaj Harkutt is the referred doctor. “Judge Srikant Kulkarni was present when Judge Loya was admitted to the hospital,” Rohatgi reads. “When the ailing judge’s name was entered as Brij Mohan and not Brij Gopal. Hence the change in name in medical report is just a mistake of dictation on the part of judge Kulkarni.”

He referred to the CG fiasco. “For a layman, any impulse taken by the ECG machine nodule, the ECG is recorded. Hence, one of the judges said that the ECG was taken and recorded. ECG was not done is not a conclusive fact in this case. There is disparity in the views regarding ECG.”

Page 59A was referred to, containing the statement of the father of Judge Loya.

He also tried to debunk the political angle, saying that the “Ishwar Vahiti concerned here was Justice Loya’s friend and not the one who is associated with the RSS.”

Senior counsel Indira Jaising, on the opposing side, submitted that nobody denies in this case that ECG was not attempted but it could not be done. She said that the article was preceded by a dismissal order of the person by the Supreme Court, which happened 2-3 months ago.”

Rohtagi submitted that “only because Vahiti  was a friend and that too close, he was handed over Judge Loya’s body. He established his close relationship with Judge Loya in court.”

He explained: “Maharashtra is divided into ten commissionarates and 67 districts.” He place before the court a judgment in which in Maharashtra special powers are given to ACPs to conduct the investigation. He submitted that the investigation was carried out properly and there was nothing suspicious about the natural death of the Judge Loya which was only due to heart attack. He agains raised the question as to why a petition has been file in the Supreme Court after a long time.

He submitted that there was nothing wrong in procedure as well, because as per the Bombay police manual of 1959 a police officer is authorised to conduct investigation in the case of suspicious deaths.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave stated his submissions. He said that the pressure which is built in this case is important to be considered and so it becomes important to issue judicial notice. He also said that things were not always as it appears on the record and as this case is related with the death of a judge. “Hence it should be considered seriously.”

He said that it was necessary that documents are brought under oath. “This is not a politically motivated matter,” he said.

Rohatgi interfered, saying: “It’s not written anywhere that in every writ petition, rejoinders, etc must be recorded.”

To which Dave said: “Until we have the documents on the affidavits, justice won’t be served because the judges will not be able to judge independently. The State has nothing else to show. How can Rathi reply on 23rd itself?”

At this the CJI commented: “The question is whether section 174 CrPC has been duly complied with or not. This could be a ground of suspicion.”

Dave said: “The state failed in providing proper security to Judge Loya, did not even provide proper medical services, also, post death, the real cause of death was not figured out by the state.”

The matter is again listed for March 5

India News

Supreme Court questions EC over missing records in Sringeri election dispute

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission over missing video footage of the 2023 counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri constituency. The case involves a revised result following a recount of postal ballots.

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its inability to locate video recordings of the original vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency in 2023. The court said it would not accept what it described as “lame excuses” and directed the poll body to produce whatever records are available at the next hearing.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed displeasure after the Election Commission’s counsel informed it that the footage of the original counting could not be traced.

The bench also warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the required documents were not produced.

Questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it had conducted, the judges stressed that maintaining election documentation was central to its responsibilities.

“How can the Election Commission of India say that it has lost the records? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying we are trying to trace it?” the bench asked.

“We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” it added.

What is the Sringeri election dispute?

The case stems from the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election in Sringeri, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner.

The result was challenged by BJP candidate Jeevaraj before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court later ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the reverification of 279 rejected postal votes.

Following the recount, the Returning Officer declared a revised result in which Jeevaraj was declared the winner. Rajegowda then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the revised outcome.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rajegowda, directing that he continue as the Member of the Legislative Assembly while his plea remained pending.

Rajegowda seeks counting records and observer’s report

Rajegowda has sought access to the election observer’s report and video recordings of both the original counting conducted in 2023 and the recount held this year.

The missing original counting footage became a point of concern during Wednesday’s hearing, with the bench questioning the Election Commission’s inability to trace the recording.

The court directed the Commission to submit whatever records it possesses at the next hearing. Its warning about a possible adverse inference underscores the importance the bench attached to the production of the requested documents.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 15, 2027.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi joins India Gate protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents

Rahul Gandhi joined the protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents at India Gate in New Delhi on October 14. The demonstration has brought renewed attention to the 2022 murder case and the family’s concerns following Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor.

Published

on

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi joined a protest by the parents of Ankita Bhandari at India Gate in New Delhi on Wednesday, October 14, bringing renewed attention to the 2022 murder case from Uttarakhand.

The family’s demonstration follows the appointment of Dushyant Gautam, a former BJP leader associated with the party’s Uttarakhand organisation, as Governor of Sikkim. The appointment has prompted objections from Ankita’s family and political leaders, who have raised concerns about the case and the demand for justice.

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also met the family, according to reports.

Why Ankita Bhandari’s family is protesting

Ankita Bhandari, 19, worked as a receptionist at a resort in Uttarakhand. She was murdered in September 2022, and the case triggered widespread public anger and demands for accountability.

The protest has returned to the spotlight amid questions raised by the family and activists over the alleged role of a VIP in the case. These allegations and demands should be distinguished from findings established through the criminal proceedings.

Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor has become a fresh point of contention because his name has been linked to allegations surrounding the alleged VIP connection. Such allegations should not be treated as proof of involvement in the crime.

Political reactions and demand for justice

Rahul Gandhi’s participation brought the Congress leadership into the family’s latest protest in the national capital. The demonstration reflects continuing demands for accountability and further clarity over the concerns raised by the family.

The case has remained a subject of public and political debate, including questions about the investigation and the alleged VIP connection. The family’s concerns and the political reactions have renewed attention on the demand for justice for Ankita Bhandari.

Continue Reading

India News

Meerut murder: Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla get death sentence

A Meerut court has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death in the blue drum murder case involving the killing of merchant navy officer Saurabh Rajput in March 2025.

Published

on

A court in Meerut has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death for the murder of Saurabh Rajput, Muskaan’s husband and a former Merchant Navy officer. The sentencing was pronounced on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, after the court convicted the two in the case widely known as the Meerut blue drum murder.

The case involved the killing of Rajput in March 2025 and the concealment of his dismembered remains inside a blue plastic drum sealed with cement and sand.

The two were convicted on September 30. The prosecution had sought the death penalty, arguing for the maximum punishment in the case.

Court verdict follows 126 hearings

The trial involved 126 hearings and statements from 22 prosecution witnesses. District Judge Arvind Kumar Mishra delivered the sentence after the court considered the evidence presented during the proceedings.

The investigation and prosecution relied on a combination of circumstantial, technical and physical evidence. This included forensic findings, witness testimony and material recovered during the investigation.

The case drew attention after police discovered Rajput’s remains inside the cement-filled drum at the couple’s residence in Meerut.

How Saurabh Rajput was killed

According to the prosecution’s account of the case, Rajput was killed in March 2025 after he returned to Meerut from London. Investigators alleged that Muskaan and Sahil had planned the murder.

The prosecution said Rajput was given food laced with sleeping medication before he was attacked. His body was subsequently dismembered, and the remains were placed inside a blue plastic drum.

The drum was filled with a mixture containing cement and sand and sealed. Investigators later recovered the remains from inside it.

Evidence presented during the investigation

Investigators built the case using several strands of evidence. Shopkeepers provided testimony about the purchase of materials, including a blue drum, cement, sand and cutting implements, before the murder.

Call detail records and mobile tower information were also cited to establish Sahil’s presence at the residence around the time of the crime. The prosecution further relied on post-mortem findings that confirmed Rajput had died from stab injuries.

The investigation also traced the movements of Muskaan and Sahil during their trip to Himachal Pradesh following the killing. Investigators said photographs and activity linked to Rajput’s phone were used to create the impression that he was still alive.

The case came to light in March 2025

The murder came to light after questions arose over Rajput’s whereabouts. According to the investigation, the couple’s attempt to move the heavy drum eventually raised suspicion.

Rajput’s family approached the police, leading to an investigation that uncovered the remains. Muskaan and Sahil were arrested in March 2025.

The sentencing on October 14 marks a major development in the case, which had proceeded from the discovery of Rajput’s remains to a trial involving dozens of witness statements and more than a hundred hearings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com