Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(2)Crimes504(SC); JT1990(2)SC372; 1990(2)SCALE871; (1990)3SCC119; [1990]2SCR871; 1990(2)LC535(SC)
1. Two important questions arising for consideration in the above matter are:1. Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 have been illegally detained from 21.5.1989 to 1.8.1989 without any order of remand?2. Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested were subjected to torture and treated in a degrading and inhuman manner by handcuffing and parading them through the public thorough-fare during transit to the Court in utter disregard to the Court and whether they are entitled for compensation?2. The salient and material facts as set out in the Writ Petitions are as follows:3. The petitioners are social workers and Members of 'Kisan Adivasi Sangathan', Kesala. The said 'Sangathan' is actively working against all kinds of exploitation purported against the local farmers and tribal people in the district of Hoshangabad. In villages of Morpani and Madikhoh of Hoshangabad District there was only one school teacher employed in the Morpani school. The teacher was not attending the school for the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1709; 1990CriLJ1710; 1990(2)Crimes705(SC); JT1990(2)SC358; (1990)4SCC389; [1990]2SCR939; 1990(2)LC544(SC)
ORDER1. It is a very tragic and pathetic case-tragic in the sense that 13 persons have been massacred in a gruesome and horrendous manner and pathetic in the sense that the culprits burnt the victims of this barbaric act by covering with sugarcane leaves and sprinkling with diesel oil. At the same time, we are deeply distressed and pained to note that three of the accused persons i.e. A-1, A-2 and A-27, who were in prison on the date of occurrence are falsely implicated as having taken part in the occurrence and the main witness, Nitya Nand (PW-1) has made a deliberate and suborn perjury by naming these three accused persons even in the earliest complaint (Ex. Ka-1) with an oblique motive of obtaining conviction of these accused also.2. Even at the threshold, we would like to point out that as the appellant has not furnished the correct list of the array of the accused with reference to each of the four sessions trials in a chronological manner, we with great difficulty have culled out...
Tag this Judgment!