Category: himpitcc

  • The intersection between sports and fighting police violence

    first_imgThe ESPY Awards honor individual and team athletes in the U.S. and worldwide for outstanding achievements on a yearly basis. It is sponsored by ESPN, arguably the most well-known international sports network. Its Sports Center shows are extremely popular. ESPN, a partner of the ABC commercial network, has a reputation of mixing sports with social issues, including those dealing with racism, sexism and homophobia.In light of the recent police murders of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., and Philando Castile in St. Paul, Minn., this year’s ESPY broadcast took the unusual step of opening with four prominent African-American National Basketball Association All-Stars — Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade and ­LeBron James — who presented moving and heartfelt soliloquies reflecting on the issue of race and police killings.Paul specifically mentioned the names of Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sterling and Castile, all murdered by racist state repression, and emphasized how Black and Brown people are disrespected. Wade made a call for racial profiling to stop, although he didn’t directly link profiling to police terror.What these messages reflect is a recent trend among well-known and lesser-known athletes. Before the awards took place, members of the Women’s National Basketball Association’s Minnesota Lynx and the New York Liberty wore warm up T-shirts with the names of Sterling and Castile. The Lynx are the current WNBA champions. Their T-shirts also included a small Dallas police emblem with the words “Black Lives Matter” above it.Lynx Head Coach Cheryl Reeve posted this powerful statement on her Twitter account: “To rebut BLM with ‘All Lives Matter’ implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they’re not. #BlackLivesMatter doesn’t mean your life isn’t important if you aren’t Black — it means that Black lives, which are seen without value within white supremacy, are important.”Off-duty police “walked off the job” during the Lynx game in protest and refused to do security.A valid question is when will NBA teams, not just individuals, step to the plate and follow the lead of the WNBA.Jalen Rose, a retired basketball player and ESPN sportscaster, made a very important point on the “First Take” show July 15, when he stated that police brutality is rooted in slavery and the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which legally sanctioned that Black people were “three-fifths a human being.” He also implied that white supremacy hasn’t been overcome in the 50-plus years since the Civil Rights bills were passed. Rose stated that police brutality is nothing new; what is new is the videotaping of this violence that allows it to be widely disseminated so quickly on social media. These graphic videos have traumatized viewers, but also helped to raise consciousness on this brutal police war.Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback, characterized the murders of Sterling and Castile as lynchings.There is very little doubt that the protests that have shut down interstate highways, organized by the Black Lives Matter movement since the deaths of Sterling and Castile became widely known, have inspired these athletes to take a more visible stand.Many young whites have stood ­shoulder to shoulder with Black and Brown people in the streets. It is very unfortunate that white athletes, except for a few, have been virtually silent on police killings. This works to the advantage of the police and those they serve.In many instances, these athletes have made a decision to equate the deaths of Black people at the hands of the police with the deaths of the five Dallas police officers at a BLM protest on July 7. The reasons for doing this may vary, from those who want to show support for the police to those who want to minimize any backlash. Many athletes also reflect a general societal idea that there are good cops and bad cops.Because the police see themselves as above any reproach, many of them view anyone supporting the BLM movement as being anti-police and, therefore, their enemy. It is an attempt on the part of the police to divert any attention away from the fact that they expect unconditional respect and fear.All violence is not the samePresident Barack Obama hosted a televised town hall meeting, “The President and the People: A National Conversation” in Washington, D.C., that was broadcast the evening of July 14. Obama answered questions from Sterling’s son, a BLM activist and pro-cop representatives, among others. Seated in the audience was Lezley McSpadden, the mother of Michael Brown. Erica Garner, the daughter of Eric Garner, was not allowed to participate in the discussion, which was recorded and edited earlier in the day.Obama’s main plea, very similar to the one he made at the memorial for the five slain Dallas cops, was for communities of color and the police to dialogue to iron out differences in order to work more closely together. This narrative plays into the myth that since everyone should be viewed as equal, the responsibility to end violence should be equally shared.LeBron James made a plea for all violence to stop. How can that be when the U.S. is the world’s most powerful capitalist country, built on the backs of slavery, the theft of Indigenous lands and two-thirds of Mexico, wars, occupation and the superexploitation of workers’ labor despite borders?Capitalism relies on class relations in which a tiny, ruling elite of billionaires, widely known as the 1%, needs a huge repressive state to keep it in power to make more and more profits off the backs of oppressed labor. These rulers rely on the police to keep them in power and the masses in check. What other reason could there be that 99.9 percent of killer cops don’t face arrests, indictments or convictions, when Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples are expendable in their eyes? Instead, the most these cops may face is “administrative leave,” “desk duty” or rarely, “firing.” The laws under capitalism exist to legally shield the cops, not to bring them to justice.Let’s be clear. Gun violence in communities of color is not the same as gun violence by the cops. This continues to be an ongoing debate, including among large sectors in society. When oppressed people are forced to exist in subhuman conditions, especially in urban areas where there are no jobs, lack of decent housing, cuts in education and the militarization of schools, mass incarceration, hospital closings and more — when there is no escape from dire poverty — homicide rates and drug abuse take place in disproportionately higher numbers.The police as a repressive force are armed occupiers of these communities who become judge, jury and executioner. Killings and brutality based on racial profiling are rubber-stamped by the capitalist state on behalf of the interests of the bosses and bankers. The reality is that the police, along with other repressive institutions like the FBI, CIA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the prisons, etc., are above the law because they maintain the racist status quo.Many of these athletes are now trying to figure out how best to turn their words into actions. Some are afraid that if they speak out too loud and too militantly, they risk losing millions of dollars in endorsements. Others may fear losing some of their fan base. And, of course, many fear some kind of retaliation from the police, just as the Lynx experienced.What is most important for revolutionaries to prioritize is continuing to broaden the political support for Black and Brown activists who refuse to let demonization, marginalization and isolation push back the Black Lives Matter movement, especially in light of the Dallas killings, the Baton Rouge shooting of police on July 17 and other diversions the police and politicians may use to gain back any dwindling sympathy for them.The strengthening of this political support will reinforce confidence among athletes to take bolder actions, like those of the great Muhammad Ali, when he refused to be recruited into the military to fight in Vietnam, or Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who raised clenched fists at the 1968 Olympics to protest racism at home. They will continue to bring attention to police violence, with the understanding that they will not be alone in their efforts.Moorehead is the 2016 presidential candidate for Workers World Party.She is the daughter of the late basketball coach Isaac Moorehead, whose women’s and men’s teams won Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association championships during the 1970s and 1980s at Norfolk State University, a historically Black college in Norfolk, Va.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thislast_img read more

  • Arrieta hurls second career no-hitter

    first_imgGrant McGalliard Grant McGalliard + posts World Oceans Day shines spotlight on marine plastic pollution ReddIt Previous articleFinancial literacy program promotes saving, spending wiselyNext articleEducation double major program gains popularity Grant McGalliard RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Twitter Grant McGalliard is a senior journalism and political science major from Bay City, Texas. He’s worked in everything from sports to student organizations at TCU, and recently began blogging with the Dallas Morning News. In his spare time, Grant enjoys tweeting far too much, pretending he knows more than he does about Premier League soccer, and listening to the music of Kanye West. TCU removes Phi Kappa Sigma for hazing and other misconduct Grant McGalliard TCU students receive evacuation text by mistake Grant McGalliard Linkedin Facebook Twitter Welcome TCU Class of 2025 Linkedin Grant McGalliard Phi Kappa Sigma executive director, chapter president respond to dismissal Baseball season recap: Rebuilding turns to reloading after surprise CWS trip This picture was taken after Arrieta’s first no-hitter, against the Dodgers last September. He threw his second tonight, against the Reds. Facebook ReddIt TCU places second in the National Student Advertising Competition, the highest in school history printIn a matchup of two former Horned Frog star pitchers, the Chicago Cubs’ Jake Arrieta had the upper hand over Cincinnati’s Brandon Finnegan.In fact, he had the upper hand over all of Cincinnati.Arrieta threw his second career no-hitter Thursday night in a 16-0 win against the Reds. The reigning NL Cy Young Award winner walked four and struck out six.One of those strikeout victims was Finnegan, who went down at the plate in his only appearance against Arrieta. Finnegan gave up five runs, all of them earned, and was removed after the fourth inning.The win moves Arrieta to 4-0 on the year, with an ERA of 0.87. He also had two hits on the night and scored a run.You can see video of Arrieta’s gem here.last_img read more

  • Security climate worsens for journalists

    first_img December 13, 2019 Find out more August 8, 2013 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Security climate worsens for journalists Receive email alerts News Help by sharing this information News Central African RepublicAfrica RSF decries arbitrary blocking of two CAR news websites RSF_en News Follow the news on Central African Republiccenter_img to go further April 6, 2021 Find out more May 13, 2020 Find out more Central African RepublicAfrica Six years on, same unanswered questions about French journalist’s death in CAR Organisation Reporters Without Borders strongly condemns an increase in threats and violence against journalists in the past few days, including threats by government officials.“The intimidation of journalists and ransacking of media after the Seleka coalition seized power by force in March already dealt a severe blow to freedom of information, but a whole new level has been reached in the past few days,” Reporters Without Borders said.“There has been a major escalation in harassment, threats and intimidation against journalists with privately-owned media, which is being carried out or encouraged by the authorities. We call on the government in Bangui to put a stop to this at once.”Geoffroy Dotte, managing editor of the weekly Dernières Minutes, was kidnapped in Miskine on 3 August after being seen with a copy of a press release by supporters of former government minister Mohamed Moussa Dhaffane, who has been on hunger strike since 11 July.Dotte, a member of the Group of Central African Privately-Owned Press Publishers and head of the Central African Journalists Union’s print media section, was handed over to Seleka and was then taken blindfolded to an unknown location where he was interrogated for two hours, despite having shown his press card.He was finally released in the evening after being ordered to say nothing about what had happened to him.During a news conference at Bangui’s Hotel Ledger on 27 July, the president’s media adviser publicly insulted journalists with the privately-owned media, describing them as “tramps.”Davy Kpenouwen, the managing editor of the daily Le Pays, was summoned by the prosecutor-general on 2 August and was threatened with arrest. Le Pays seems to have become a government target in connection with its coverage of the so-called “Badica affair,” although no libel action has been brought against it.Telephone threats were received by reporters and publishers who took part in Radio Ndeke Luka’s “Press Club” programme on 2 August.In early June, the minister responsible for the news media, Christophe Gazam Betty, turned up uninvited at the headquarters of the daily Le Confident in the company of armed men, who ransacked its files and threatened its journalists.Transitional President Michel Djotodia’s meetings with journalists with the privately-owned media on 3 May and 27 July were positive as far as they went, but fell far short of what is clearly needed in the light of recent developments.Reporters Without Borders condemned the behaviour of members of the Seleka rebel coalition, who robbed or ransacked several news media after toppling the government and entering the capital on 24 March.The Central African Republic is ranked 65th out of 178 countries in the 2013 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index . CAR policeman who shot reporter must be punished, RSF says Newslast_img read more

  • Many Struggling Homeowners Are Overlooking Payment-Relief Options

    first_img Many Struggling Homeowners Are Overlooking Payment-Relief Options The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Home / Daily Dose / Many Struggling Homeowners Are Overlooking Payment-Relief Options The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago A large number of Americans suffering economic difficulties aren’t even aware that help is available. This holds even more true for lower-income households.At least one-fifth of Americans are unaware of mortgage or rent relief options available to help in addressing the financial tumult created by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Fannie Mae’s latest National Housing Survey covering the second quarter of this year.In a poll of 1,000 adults, Fannie Mae determined that 76% of respondents were either “not at all concerned” or “not very concerned” about their ability to pay their bills, while 21% were either “somewhat concerned” or “very concerned.” But only 40% of respondents said they were familiar with the mortgage or rent relief programs now available to help households facing money problems at this time, with 56% admitting they knew nothing of these programs.On the basis of income, those earning $50,000 or lower expressed greater concern about being able to pay their bills than those earning more than $50,000 in a 27% to 14% balance. The lower-income respondents also proved less familiar with the relief options available to help alleviate the financial stress on their housing costs, with 56% of that demographic acknowledging a lack of familiarity versus a 40% admission of unfamiliarity by the higher-income earners.The lower-income respondents were also more concerned about losing their jobs (33%) versus the higher-income respondents (19%).Measured along racial lines, Black and Hispanic respondents who were either mortgage borrowers or renters were more concerned about being able to cover their bills than their White and Asian counterparts. Asian mortgage borrowers were more aware of current relief programs than the other demographics while White renters were more familiar with rental relief programs.In addition, the study showed that although COVID-19 concerns continue to drive certain decisions, they will not have a significant impact on consumers’ relocating activity.“Most surveyed consumers expressed that it’s a bad time to move due to the coronavirus, though that belief improved over the quarter,” said Doug Duncan, Fannie Mae’s SVP and Chief Economist. “Additionally, due to the pandemic, job concerns did get significantly worse in the second quarter, and those who were concerned about losing their job were more likely to think it’s a bad time to move. Despite these concerns, consumers are not yet telling us they expect to change their moving behavior.”Duncan added respondents interested in pursuing homeownership showed an increased comfort level in going through the process through digital and virtual channels. “In general, consumer shopping habits have shifted from in-store to online amid the pandemic,” he said. “However, consumers tended to say they would prefer to perform homebuying and renting activities in-person. Interest in online options was strongest for selecting a lender and completing an application online, and grew during the quarter. Since 2018, mortgage holders’ preferred method for completing home shopping activities has remained relatively unchanged. Those with a mortgage remain more likely than renters to prefer to complete key home shopping activities online.” August 12, 2020 1,238 Views in Daily Dose, Featured, News Assistance mortgage relief 2020-08-12 Christina Hughes Babb Previous: Exploring How Housing Can Address Retirement Costs Next: Expert Insights: An Update on Demand Letter Litigation  Print This Post Tagged with: Assistance mortgage relief About Author: Phil Hall Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days agocenter_img The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Subscribe Sign up for DS News Daily Related Articles Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Phil Hall is a former United Nations-based reporter for Fairchild Broadcast News, the author of nine books, the host of the award-winning SoundCloud podcast “The Online Movie Show,” co-host of the award-winning WAPJ-FM talk show “Nutmeg Chatter” and a writer with credits in The New York Times, New York Daily News, Hartford Courant, Wired, The Hill’s Congress Blog and Profit Confidential. His real estate finance writing has been published in the ABA Banking Journal, Secondary Marketing Executive, Servicing Management, MortgageOrb, Progress in Lending, National Mortgage Professional, Mortgage Professional America, Canadian Mortgage Professional, Mortgage Professional News, Mortgage Broker News and HousingWire. Share Save Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days agolast_img read more

  • Three men arrested in Derry in violent dissident activity probe

    first_img Facebook Guidelines for reopening of hospitality sector published Three men arrested in Derry in violent dissident activity probe Previous articleEducate Together in Letterkenny to get new school in 2015Next articleInishowen Crash: Shaun Kelly sentenced to four years in prison with two suspended News Highland Twitter LUH system challenged by however, work to reduce risk to patients ongoing – Dr Hamilton News Pinterest WhatsApp Almost 10,000 appointments cancelled in Saolta Hospital Group this week Detectives from the PSNI Serious Crime Branch investigating violent dissident activity in Derry have arrested three men.The men, aged 20, 42 and 49 have been taken to the Serious Crime Suite at Antrim police station.A number of properties have been searched and vehicles seized for forensic examination. RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHORcenter_img Facebook Pinterest WhatsApp By News Highland – December 18, 2014 Google+ Calls for maternity restrictions to be lifted at LUH Need for issues with Mica redress scheme to be addressed raised in Seanad also Google+ Twitter Minister McConalogue says he is working to improve fishing quotalast_img read more

  • “High Courts Can Also Uphold Your Fundamental Rights” SC Asks Sameer Thakker To Approach HC For His Release Over Tweets Against Thackeray

    first_imgTop Stories”High Courts Can Also Uphold Your Fundamental Rights” SC Asks Sameer Thakker To Approach HC For His Release Over Tweets Against Thackeray Radhika Roy16 Nov 2020 1:12 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an Article 32 petition filed on behalf of Sameet Thakkar for transfer and consolidation of investigation in the FIRs pertaining to his tweets against the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and other Cabinet Ministers.A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde directed Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of Thakkar, to…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an Article 32 petition filed on behalf of Sameet Thakkar for transfer and consolidation of investigation in the FIRs pertaining to his tweets against the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and other Cabinet Ministers.A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde directed Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of Thakkar, to withdraw the plea and approach the appropriate forum, that is, the Bombay High Court.In today’s hearing, Jethmalani submitted to the Court that the offences in the FIRs were bailable, and yet Thakkar had been arrested.”Please see my Affidavit. These are all bailable offences and I have been arrested. Please see what has happened. If your Lordships are not shocked by this, then nothing will shock you.”, stated Jethmalani.To this, the CJI responded, “We see such matters every day. We are immune from such shocks. Nothing will shock us now”. At this juncture, Advocate Rahul Chitnis, appearing for State of Maharashtra, informed the Court that the State would not be opposing the bail application as the investigation had been completed.The CJI then informed Jethmalani that the Apex Court would not be entertaining an Article 32 petition and that he should approach the High Court.”High Court can also uphold your fundamental rights. HC can also protect you. We find it strange that we have to ask you to listen to us. We have repeatedly said that we will not entertain an Article 32 petition”, noted the CJI.Jethmalani continued submitting to the Court that the offences in the FIRs did not disclose anything against Thakkar and that subsequent FIRs were filed after his arrest. Further, Thakkar was paraded on the road, videographed and had been in custody for weeks, all because of a few tweets.The CJI responded, “What makes you think that we approve of this? We are only asking you to approach the High Court, so that we can have the benefit of their observations. We will allow you to withdraw the plea and approach the appropriate forum”. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, with liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach the High Court. The petitioner has sought for transfer and consolidation of investigation in the FIRs already registered and any future FIRs pertaining to tweets against the CM of Maharashtra and other cabinet ministers to Sitabuldi Police Station Nagpur, “to ensure that he is not subjected to multiple proceedings in different jurisdictions based on the same facts and allegations.”On July 1, 2020, a complaint came to be filed against Thakkar at Nagpur by one Nitin Tiwari, a Shiv Sena functionary for allegedly posting some objectionable tweets against Uddhav Thackeray. Another complaint came to be filed against the petitioner for allegedly posting some objectionable tweets, with VP Road Police Station, Mumbai by Dharmendra Mishra, who is an Advocate and also a Shiv Sena functionary. Another complaint was filed at BKC Cyber Cell. FIRs were registered in all the above complaints for offences under provisions of IPC and IT Act.The petitioner filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court seeking protection from arrest. He was arrested on October 24, 2020 from Rajkot by the Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur. After securing his transit bail from the Rajkot Court, the police took the petitioner to Nagpur. He was produced before the Nagpur Magistrate Court on October 26.According to the petitioner, he was produced before the Magistrate “in an inhuman condition with his face covered with a black cloth and his neck tied with a rope, which was being pulled by a Police officer. The Petitioner was paraded on the road while being video graphed.”Thereafter, Nagpur Magistrate Court remanded the Petitioner to police custody till October 30, 2020 and further extended the police custody till November 2. Petitioner has alleged that during custody, he was mistreated, not permitted to change his clothes or take a bath for his entire period of police remand.On November 2, the Nagpur Magistrate Court granted judicial custody to the petitioner. A bail application was filed immediately and the petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate Court in connection with the Nagpur FIR. However, as soon as the petitioner was granted bail, he was immediately arrested by the VP Road Police Station, Mumbai.Thereafter, on November 3, 2020, the petitioner was produced before the Girgaon Magistrate Court by the VP Road Police Station. It was informed by the prosecutor that the police have added Sections 201, 509 of IPC and 67A of the IT Act in the connected FIR, 67A being non-bailable. The petitioner was remanded to police custody till November 9, 2020 and then the Girgaon Court granted judicial custody to the petitioner. Bail application of the petitioner was scheduled to beheard on November 10. Meanwhile, a production warrant was immediately sought by the BKC Cyber Police Station in connection with the third FIR, to arrest the Petitioner. On November 10, the petitioner was granted bail in connection with the FIR at VP Road police station. While granting bail to the petitioner, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court imposed a condition that the petitioner shall not operate his Twitter account until further orders. The petitioner has argued that this condition is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Again, as soon as the petitioner secured bail, he was arrested by the BKC Cyber Police.On November 11, the petitioner was produced before the Esplanade Court by the BKC Cyber Police Station. The Esplanade Court granted police custody to the petitioner till November 13 which was extended further till November 16.The plea states-“The conduct of the Maharashtra police, of arresting the petitioner in one case after another, upon securing bail, without any notice, smacks of malafide. Furthermore, in FIR bearing no. 29 of 2020, registered at BKC Cyber Police Station, the Petitioner is named as accused no.7 and is the only one to have been arrested. The Petitioner above named is being harassed because he is critical of the ruling dispensation. It is submitted that in any event the investigations are overlapping, electronic evidence has already been sent to the forensic lab and all the alleged objectionable tweets are already forming part of Nagpur FIR. In the circumstances, the continued incarceration of the Petitioner is a violation of the Petitioner’s personal liberty and violative of the principles of justice and liberty.”Thus, the petitioner has sought the following-a) Grant of ad-interim bail in FIR registered with the BKC Cyber Police Station, in the interest of justice and liberty; b) Stay further investigation in both the remaining FIRs registered at VP Road police station and Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur.c) Set aside the condition imposed by the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Girgaon vide Order dated 10.11.2020 and the Petitioner be allowed to operate his Twitter accountNext Storylast_img read more

  • Can Adverse Inference Be Drawn From Silence Of Accused ?

    first_imgKnow the LawCan Adverse Inference Be Drawn From Silence Of Accused ? Sanskriti Gupta7 Feb 2021 12:09 AMShare This – xJurisprudentially, section 313 of the Cr.P.C.[1] envisages rules of natural justice.[2] In this regard, the Apex court has held that section 313 is not merely a notion of audi alteram partem[3] or a statutory right but also a Constitutional right to a fair trial under article 21 of the Constitution.[4] However, practically, this section gains much more significance due to rampant…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginJurisprudentially, section 313 of the Cr.P.C.[1] envisages rules of natural justice.[2] In this regard, the Apex court has held that section 313 is not merely a notion of audi alteram partem[3] or a statutory right but also a Constitutional right to a fair trial under article 21 of the Constitution.[4] However, practically, this section gains much more significance due to rampant poverty, lack of adequate or competent representation and illiteracy. These are some of the social realities and undeniable features of the Indian legal system.[5] These factors can cause serious prejudice to the accused if he isn’t made aware of the evidence against him by the judge and given a fair chance to establish his innocence. Thus, section 313(1)(b) castes an imperative duty upon the court to give the accused an opportunity to explain any incriminating circumstances or inculpatory evidence put by the prosecution against him.[6] This provision, primarily, seeks to “establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused.”[7] Further, it “can be used to test the veracity”[8] of the prosecution’s case. However, by virtue of 313 (3), the accused can refuse to or provide false answers during the examination. This article seeks to examine whether an adverse inference can be drawn from such silence of the accused under 313 examination. In Part I, using case laws, the argument made is that the courts can draw an adverse inference in certain circumstances which are discussed in detail. Part II focuses on the distinction between adverse inference and deducing the guilt from the silence of the accused. Based on this, in Part III, I contend that such adverse inference does not conflict with the ‘right to silence’ granted to the accused under 313 (by virtue of Article 20(3) of the Constitution).                                                                                                           Part I In the scheme of a criminal trial, the Cr.P.C. gives the accused an absolute ‘right to silence’. This essential safeguard in criminal procedure emanates from Article 20(3) of the Constitution[9] as a right against self-incrimination or ‘testimonial compulsion’. This right has developed from common law jurisprudence and furthers the cardinal principle of criminal law that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is imperative to note that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution. Section 313 gains paramount importance as a ‘procedural safeguard’ where the prosecution argues circumstantial evidence against the accused. 313(1)(b) mandates the court to question the accused “generally” in such a manner so as to enable him to explain all relevant evidence against him. Here, the accused can either furnish an explanation or refuse to answer such questions under 313(3). The silence of the accused means his refusal to answer or a bare denial to the questions put to him without any explanation. Time and again, the Apex court has held that while the accused has the ‘right to silence’, he must also explain the incriminating evidence against him else adverse inference can be drawn. In the case of Phula Singh v. State of H.P.,[10] the appellant, charged with bribery under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, refused to provide any explanation as to the circumstances against him and evaded the questions with bare denials. While appreciating the right to silence, in view of the 313 statement of the accused, the court held that: “The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation…regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent… or even remain in complete denial…However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law.”[11] Similarly, in Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B.[12], the appellants were known to the deceased and their personal belongings were also recovered near the dead body amongst other crucial evidence to which they refused to give an explanation. The Apex held that: “it was expected of the accused to provide some reasonable explanation in regard to various circumstances leading to the commission of the crime…The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime…In both these circumstances the Court would be entitled to draw adverse inference against the accused.”[13] To arrive at this reasonable principle, in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad[14], the court, aptly, puts an analogy to the senior counsel for the accused that suppose a boy is kidnaped from under his lawful guardians. Witnesses see the accused kidnap the child, then, “what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy.”[15] Here, even the learned counsel conceded that adverse inference would be drawn if the accused refuses to explain otherwise or remains silent. Similarly, in Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan[16], an 8-year-old girl was lured away by the accused on the pretext of her giving her chocolates from her house. The girl knowing the accused as her family acquaintance readily goes with him and this fact is noted by the family of the girl and the chocolate shop owner as well. Her dead body is found the next day. Under these established circumstances, the accused under section 313, furnishes no explanation, not even when “he parted company with the young girl” or what happened after he got chocolates for the victim. The court aptly holds that: “The silence on the part of the Accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the Accused.” In this context, the court in Mir Mohammad[17], invokes an important legal principle from section 106 of the Evidence Act[18] that :”When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” The court says that this does not mean that the prosecution should not discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt. But that when they have successfully proved the facts from “which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation”[19] such adverse inference can be drawn. This becomes an important standard for drawing adverse inference in those cases where the accused “especially” withholds the knowledge that is impossible for the prosecution to prove and only the accused knows the truth of the matter. In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana,[20] the accused persons were known to the victim, one of whom goes to receive him at the airport. Later, he is found dead. The prosecution evidence links the accused persons to have been the perpetrators of the crime. Under their 313 examination, the accused firstly claim to have been falsely implicated and that their belongings were planted. Further, they are questioned about other incriminating evidence such as the car parked at the airport, phone call records, an illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased, blood of the accused at the crime scene amongst other incriminating evidence. The accused persons failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever in relation to these. The court while propounding on the principle of circumstantial evidence linked with motive, elaborates that in such cases the accused is duty-bound to provide an explanation. It holds that, “merely making a bold statement that he was innocent” while a grave failure to explain all the evidence against him will lead to an adverse inference. This being said, the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence must be airtight in itself and no other reasonable possibility must be forthcoming. It can be concluded that, where each link in the chain of circumstances, unbroken, points to the accused and he cannot furnish an explanation regarding such evidence against him, his silence or denial can be justly used to draw an adverse inference.[21] Part II Another important factor in relation to such inference has been given in the case of Raj Kumar Singh.[22] In this case, a young girl goes missing and later her body is found on the terrace of a lonely house. The accused goes to the family of the girl asking for money to bring her back and there is no other evidence against him. Under his 313 examination, the accused is unable to furnish an explanation. Here, the Apex court, reasons the principle that the silence of the accused cannot be used to fill the gap in the prosecution’s evidence. This is because the statement of the accused is not evidentiary in nature and thus, not a substantive piece of evidence.[23] It must be noted that the accused has to explain circumstances proved by the prosecution against him and not prove his innocence in vacuum. The court lays down the law as: “An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become witness against himself.”[24] A criminal trial undertakes the provision of justice not only to the victim but also to the accused and society at large. Under section 313, by choosing not to answer, the accused does not render himself liable as no oath is administered to him. As noted earlier, since statements under 313 are not evidentiary in nature, drawing an adverse inference cannot be the same as deducing the guilt from the silence of the accused. Thus,”his is answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions.”[25] Drawing an adverse inference would mean that the silence of the accused adds to the prosecution’s circumstantial case against him when he chooses not to refute it or explain such evidence. For example, why the accused was at a certain place at a certain time with the accused or how his belongings along with other evidence have been found in relation to the crime or the victim. On the other, hand deduction of guilt would be holding the accused guilty solely on his refusal to answer or explain in absence of such material circumstances. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal Shukla[26] the court held that even though the respondent failed to explain incriminating circumstances against him, the other circumstances do not coherently lead to the conclusion that he had caused the death of his wife. The court’s decision reflects that an adverse inference is not the same as the guilt of the accused. Neither does one flow from the other necessarily. Part III The Apex court has deliberated that the questions under 313 judges/courts have to bring the attention of the accused to all incriminating material against him.[27] This plays a key role in preventing any prejudice and injustice being caused. If appropriate and comprehensive questions are not, or composite questions are, put to the accused, there is a fair chance that accused will not be able to explain his position or furnish a relevant explanation.[28] A plea of non-compliance thereof may not vitiate the conviction but the appellate court can remand the case back for re-trial and fresh examination of the accused under 313.[29] Section 313 of the 1898 Code[30] in clause (2) stated that “The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer questions or by giving false answers to them; but the court and the jury (if any) may draw such inference from such refusal or answers as it thinks fit.” In 1972, the code was amended and 313 omitted the latter part on drawing adverse inference. On a bare perusal, the legislative intent seems to be against drawing adverse inference from the silence of the accused.[31] But while drawing adverse inference from the accused’s silence, the courts have reiterated principles of natural justice and fairness with the aim of safeguarding the rights of the accused. The ‘right to silence’ granted under 313 (1)(3) flowing from the Constitutional provision Article 20(3)[32], is not violated. Firstly, the right to remain silent under 20(3) envisages immunity to the accused from being compelled to give testimony against himself. So, when questioned under 313 the accused can choose to not answer and that discretion remains with the accused. In 2003, the Malimath Committee Report[33] analysed the right of silence in conjunction with various sections under the Cr.P.C and The Evidence Act. The committee notes that the power of questioning the accused with adverse inference comes after a prima facie case has been made out against him and the court can do so for the purpose of finding the truth. In relation to section 313, the committee noted that, “Article 20(3) does not in terms speak of any immunity from drawal of appropriate inference when the accused refuses to answer. It is difficult to infer how immunity from drawal of appropriate inference including adverse inference flows from or is a part of the immunity against testimonial compulsions.”[34] Secondly, it is mostly in circumstantial evidence where furnishing such explanation becomes imperative. If every time an accused is put on spot as to the evidence against him and he refuses to answer or gives a bare denial, the courts will not be able to provide justice efficiently if they cannot draw an inference as required. Finally, the ‘right to silence’ is not violated as the accused is not compelled, and can refuse to answer. If adverse inference was equal to deducing his guilt, the accused would’ve been forced to answer but silence only becomes a factor in the larger mitigating circumstances against him. As noted earlier, adverse inference from silence can not be made the sole basis for the conviction of the accused.[35] The Apex court in a homogenous fashion, has reasoned that heavy reliance is first placed on the prosecution’s evidence and its consistency. After which, if the accused instead of rebutting the evidence against him, adds to the prosecution’s case by forthcoming with no explanation, an adverse inference can be drawn. And even then, the silence of the accused is not the sole factor in determining his guilt, only a contributing one. [1] CODE CRIM. PROC. 1973 § 313. [2] Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 496 ¶ 16. [3] The other side must be heard as well or no man should be condemned unheard. [4] Renna Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2018 SC 5361 ¶ 16. [5] See Law Commission of India, 41st Report on The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 , September 1969. The report made a finding in regards to section 342 (now, section 313 CrPC) of The Code Of Criminal Procedure ,1898. It said, “We have, after considering the various aspects of the matter as summarized above, come to the conclusion that S.342 should not be deleted. In our opinion the stage has not yet come for its being removed from the statute book. With further increase in literacy and with better facilities for legal aid, it may be possible to take that step in the future.” ¶ 24.45. [6] See Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 ¶ 22; State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100. [7] Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3570 ¶ 10. [8] Id. [9] “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”, INDIAN CONST. art 20, § 3. [10] Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1256. [11] Id. ¶ 8. [12] Santan Naskar, AIR 2010 SC 3570. [13] Id. ¶ 10-11. For Contra. see Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 ¶ 84. [14] State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2988 ¶ 35. In this case, a young business man was abducted by the accused persons and they were last seen hunting him and subsequently, witnesses saw them taking him away violently. The next morning his dead body is found in the hospital. [15] Id. [16] Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC Online SC 2548. However, this judgement has been criticised by law students for using the ‘last seen theory’ callously without established circumstantial evidence; and that it moves away from the due process approach. For this contrary opinion, see Akash Mukherjee, A Case on Silence: Dissecting the Right to Silence of an Accused, THE CRIMINAL LAW BLOG, NLUJ (14th June 2020),; Indrashish Majumder, Right to Silence (A Grey Area in Criminal Jurisprudence) in the Light of Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan, CENTRE FOR CRIMINAL LAW, NUSRL RANCHI (14th June 2020), [17] Mir Mohammad, AIR 2000 SC 2988. [18] The Indian Evidence Act 1872 § 106. [19] Mir Mohammad, AIR 2000 SC 2988 ¶ 37. [20] Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912. [21] For contrary opinion, see Nagraj v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, (2015) 4 SCC 739 ¶ 14-15. [22] Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150. [23] See also Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 3582, where the court has reiterated that, “The statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution.” [24] Id. ¶ 36. [25] Munish Mubar, AIR 2013 SC 912. [26] State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal Shukla, AIR 1997 SC 3111 ¶ 30-31. [27] See Rautu Bodra and Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1319. [28] See Sharad Birdhi Chand Sara v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622. [29] Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 496. [30] CODE CRIM. PROC. 1898 § 342. [31] See. Law Commission of India, 41st Report on The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 , September 1969 ¶ 24.51- 24.52. [32] INDIAN CONST. art 20, § 3. [33] Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Vol.1, March 2003 at 39-50. The report also critiques the approach taken by the 41st Law Commission report in terms of adverse inference being drawn. Contra. Prof. Upendra Baxi, Introductory Critique in The (Malimath) Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System: Premises, Politics and Implications for Human Rights, Amnesty International India, September 2003, [34] Id. at 50 ¶ 3.36. [35] See Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 3150; Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1552. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

  • ‘You just don’t think,’ state trooper says after rescuing unconscious man from burning car

    first_imgNew Jersey State Police(NEW YORK) — New Jersey State Troopers dragged an unconscious man from a car on the side of a highway moments before it was consumed by fire.In video released by the New Jersey State Police on Thursday, State Troopers Thomas O’Connor and Christopher Warwick can be seen yelling at the man to get out of his Ford Fusion before realizing he was unconscious on State Highway 42 in Camden County, New Jersey, just east of Philadelphia.Police responded to the call at around 11:23 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 4.When they arrived on the scene, they found the unconscious man pressing on the gas pedal of the car and smoke coming out of the front wheel well, State Police said in a statement on their Facebook page.“Moments after their arrival, the front end of the vehicle became engulfed in flames,” the statement said.O’Connor told ABC News that he and his colleagues had been trained for these kinds of situations. He said that in that moment, they did not have time to think about anything else but saving the man’s life.“You just don’t think,” he said. “You just go in and you’re focused on trying to save somebody’s life.”Although the man was trapped in the car, O’Connor said that he and Warwick were eventually able to get his legs loose from underneath the steering wheel and pull him out of the driver’s side window.Even though the ordeal only lasted a few minutes, O’Connor said it felt like much longer.“I guess at that current moment, it feels like you’ve been there for an hour. But in reality, it’s pretty quick,” he said.The troopers dragged the man to safety where he regained consciousness, according to the statement. He did not suffer any injuries.The two troopers happened to be in the area when the call about the burning car came in, they said.Warwick said that there was a sense of pride in helping the man, but that fellow troopers would have done the same thing.The video speaks for itself, Warwick said, adding, “I think it was a quick reaction. Fortunately, it had a positive outcome.”Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

  • Oakland news crew robbed, security guard shot while covering teachers’ strike

    first_imgboonyoo/iStock(OAKLAND, Calif.) — A television news crew was robbed at gunpoint and their armed security guard was shot on Sunday as they covered a teachers’ strike in Oakland, California, police said.The Bay Area news crew, from local CBS station KPIX 5, told responding officers just before 5 p.m. local time that a vehicle pulled up and two individuals got out, demanding their camera and equipment. Gunfire was exchanged between the security guard and one of the suspects. The suspects got back in their car and fled the scene with the crew’s equipment, according to the Oakland Police Department. The security guard was taken to a local hospital in stable condition, police said. Later that evening, officers briefly pursued the suspect vehicle in a high-speed chase and detained its driver after the car crashed. Several other individuals have been detained in connection with the armed robbery and shooting, and some of the stolen equipment has been recovered, police said. Officers are also investigating a man who walked into a local hospital with gunshot wounds on Sunday evening shortly after the robbery and shooting to determine if the incident is connected, police said. The investigation is ongoing. The news station, KPIX 5, said its reporter Joe Vazquez and photographer John Anglin were conducting interviews outside a public library for the ongoing teachers’ strike when they were approached by the armed suspects. “John quickly backed away from the camera and tripod and took cover inside the live truck, warning me to stay down,” Vazquez wrote in a Facebook post Sunday night. “Gunshots rang out. Then more gunshots. Our guard believes he may have wounded the robber, but we are still working to confirm that. They got away with our camera and tripod. John and I are shaken up, but are otherwise fine.” “The security guard is going to be OK,” Vazquez later added to his Facebook post. “Talked to him tonight, and he is in good spirits surrounded by family and friends. I thanked him profusely for protecting us.” Thousands of public school teachers in Oakland went on strike Thursday after two years of negotiations failed to secure them a new contract that would provide better wages, more resources and smaller class sizes. The teachers’ strike — the first in Oakland in 23 years — is poised to enter its third day Monday. Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

  • University student dies after plunging 100 feet off cliff in Ozark National Forest

    first_imgBriar Cliff University(SIOUX CITY, Iowa) — A 20-year-old university student was killed after falling off a cliff in the Ozark National Forest, officials said.Andrea Norton, a junior at Briar Cliff University in Sioux City, Iowa, was visiting the Arkansas forest Saturday as part of a class activity, the Newton County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. The group was walking near a cliff called Hawksbill Crag when Norton, attempting to move from one area of the Crag to another, lost her footing and fell approximately 100 feet, according to authorities.She did not survive the fall.Newton County Sheriff Glenn Wheeler said police were called at about 9:33 a.m. and worked to recover her body.Wheeler said the area is known to be dangerous and “one stumble or misstep is all it can take to turn a great day into a tragic one.”“This is the second callout to the area this year that involved a serious fall, and the season is just beginning,” Wheeler said.In a Facebook post Saturday night, the university called Norton “a passionate environmental science major, exemplary student and dedicated athlete. She lived BCU’s values in everything she did from the classroom to the court and everywhere she went.”Norton, who was from Hot Springs, South Dakota, was on the university’s volleyball team, which took to Twitter to express their condolences for their lost teammate.Wheeler said he’s in contact with Norton’s family.“I told them there are a lot of people in Arkansas praying for them,” he said. Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more