Thrust into political limelight after the death of his father YSR in an air crash last year, Yeduguri Sandinti Jagan Mohan Reddy never hid his ambition to become the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, fuelling troubles for both the faction-ridden state Congress unit and party high command with his defiant attitude.
From a businessman to a Lok Sabha MP from his family pocketborough of Kadapa, his rise was meteoric -- thanks to his father late YS Rajasekhara Reddy's legacy and his popularity in Andhra Pradesh.
The 37-year-old, who maintained a low profile till his father's death despite becoming an MP, was forced to plunge into active politics by his father's supporters in the party.
Called 'Jagan Anna' by his followers, he drew crowds and used his powerful media, a 24-hour news channel and a mass circulation newspaper, to propagate his views and attack the Rosaiah government that took charge after YSR's death.
There was a campaign to install him as the Chief Minister after his father's death on September 2, 2009. Jagan also never said publicly that he was not in the race to succeed YSR.
Jagan was maintaining silence till he was told by Sonia Gandhi that she will decide the next chief minister of Andhra Pradesh in October last year and started embarrassing the High Command whenever he got a chance.
A successful businessman who built a media empire in just five years, Jagan Mohan wanted instant results. His impatience reflected in his open use of his media to flay the functioning of Rosaiah government and siding with TDP MPs in Parliament against the formation of a separate Telangana state.
After getting ample hints that the Congress High Command is in no mood to anoint him as YSR's successor, Jagan undertook the controversial 'Odarpu Yatra' to console the families of those who died or allegedly committed suicide after hearing the news of the death of his father.
When he decided to tour sensitive Telangana region, the high command asked him not to do so fearing backlash. But Jagan went ahead with the yatra and reached Mahabubnagar. When
violence erupted there, he was forced to return to Hyderabad.
From then, Jagan was defiant and just met Congress chief Sonia Gandhi once after that.
He defied her directives, went ahead with Odarpu Yatra in July 2010 and has been avoiding visiting Delhi since then.
Just a fortnight ago, his Sakshi channel launched an attack against Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress. The party had expressed strong disapproval of the TV programme but no action was taken against him.
Before entering politics too, Jagan had his fair share of controversies. The allotment of 487 acres of land in March 2007 to Raghuram Cements, which had Jagan as one of its directors, was criticised by the opposition parties.
Jagan tops a list of taxpayer politicians in 2009-10. He had paid Rs. 2.92 lakh tax for financial year 2008-09 but Rs. 6.6 crore advance tax in the first six months of this year, projecting a tax outgo of Rs. 22 crore with his personal income expected to cross Rs. 70 crore in 2009-10.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
YSR PARTY ?
Jagan Mohan Reddy, the son of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YSR Reddy, has submitted an application to register his new party, to be called YSR Party.
Jagan had quit the Congress in November, after months of rebellion as he struggled to come to terms with the fact that the Congress did not view him as the natural successor of his father, who died in a helicopter crash in September 2009.
The application to register the YSR Party was handed over to the Election Commission by Jagan's uncle, YV Subba Reddy.
Sources said Jagan had zeroed in on two names for his new party - both around his father's name - YSR Congress and YSR Party. But many of his supporters felt the word `Congress' should be avoided given the acrimonious parting of ways with the Congress party.
Jagan had quit the Congress in November, after months of rebellion as he struggled to come to terms with the fact that the Congress did not view him as the natural successor of his father, who died in a helicopter crash in September 2009.
The application to register the YSR Party was handed over to the Election Commission by Jagan's uncle, YV Subba Reddy.
Sources said Jagan had zeroed in on two names for his new party - both around his father's name - YSR Congress and YSR Party. But many of his supporters felt the word `Congress' should be avoided given the acrimonious parting of ways with the Congress party.
Appointment of high court judge
217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High
Court.-(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the
President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with
the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the
case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief
Justice of the High Court, and _154[shall hold office, in the case of
an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any
other case, until he attains the age of _155[sixty-two years]]:
Provided that-
(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,
resign his office;
(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the
manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a
Judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by
the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being
transferred by the President to any other High Court within the
territory of India.
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a
High Court unless he is a citizen of India and-
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory
of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court
_156*** or of two or more such Courts in succession; _157***
_157* * * * *
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause-
_158[(a) in computing the period during which a person has held
judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any
period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person
has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a
member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State,
requiring special knowledge of law;]
_159[(aa)] in computing the period during which a person has been an
advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during
which the person _160[has held judicial office or the office of a
member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State,
requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate;
(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial
office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court,
there shall be included any period before the commencement of this
Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area
which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within
India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an
advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.
_161[(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High
Court, the question shall be decided by the President after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the
President shall be final.]
Court.-(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the
President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with
the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the
case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief
Justice of the High Court, and _154[shall hold office, in the case of
an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any
other case, until he attains the age of _155[sixty-two years]]:
Provided that-
(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,
resign his office;
(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the
manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a
Judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by
the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being
transferred by the President to any other High Court within the
territory of India.
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a
High Court unless he is a citizen of India and-
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory
of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court
_156*** or of two or more such Courts in succession; _157***
_157* * * * *
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause-
_158[(a) in computing the period during which a person has held
judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any
period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person
has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a
member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State,
requiring special knowledge of law;]
_159[(aa)] in computing the period during which a person has been an
advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during
which the person _160[has held judicial office or the office of a
member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State,
requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate;
(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial
office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court,
there shall be included any period before the commencement of this
Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area
which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within
India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an
advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.
_161[(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High
Court, the question shall be decided by the President after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the
President shall be final.]
SECTION 482 OF CRPC - QUASH
According to Sec 26 of CrPC, 1973, Offences under the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter the “CrPC”) are divided into:
1. Offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) ( triable by HC, Sessions Court and other court shown in the 1st Schedule to the CrPC)
2. Offences under any other law (empowers HC, when no court is mentioned for any offence under any law other than IPC, to try such offences)
S482 deals with Inherent powers of the Court. It is under the 37th Chapter of the Code titled “Miscellaneous”.
Sec 482 CrPC reads as follows:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923 as the high courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable and apparent. The section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:
1. to give effect to an order under CrPC,
2. to prevent abuse of the process of the court,
3. to secure the ends of justice.
It comes into operation when the court acts judicially and passes an order. If order is passed by Executive officer of State in administrative capacity, it has no application. Therefore persons aggrieved by such order cannot come to HC to exercise its inherent power under this section. As the Inherent powers are vested in HC by “law” within meaning of Art 21 of Constitution, therefore, any order of HC in violation of any right under Art 21 is not ultravires. Eg. Cancelling of bail bond by HC thereby depriving a persons personal liberty.
Though the jurisdiction exists and is wide in its scope it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases., The section is a sort of reminder to the high courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent power of the high court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under section 482 is discretionary, therefore the high court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.
Under CrPC , inherent powers are vested only in the high courts and the courts subordinate to the high courts have no inherent powers. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v Kali Singh , the Supreme Court held that a magistrate has no inherent power to restore a complaint dismissed in default.
In a proceeding under section 482, the high court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below.
Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provision provided under the Code.- Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the high court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
“To prevent abuse of process of any court”
Ordinarily HC will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceeding in subordinate court but, HC is under an obligation to interfere if there is harassment of any person (Indian citizen) by illegal prosecution. It would also do so when there is any exceptional or extraordinary reasons for doing so. Shyam Sachdev v. State. Contra view in Shiv Prasad v. State of Rajasthan.
Test to determine whether thre has been an abuse of any court are:-
1. See whether a bare statement of facts of case would be sufficient to convince HC if it is a fit case for interference at intermediate stage.
2. Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be a mock trial if case is allowed to proceed.
Reasons HC can interfere:
1. Long lapse of time
2. Failure or impossibility to supply to accused, copies of police statements and other relevant documents- grounds for other relevant documents- grounds for HC to quash proceedings against accused.
“To secure ends of justice”
Eg. When a clear statutory provision of law is violated- HC can interfere. It is of vital importance in the administration of justice, and ensure proper freedom and independence of Judges must be maintained and allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly without undue influence on anyone, even SC. At the same time Judges and Magistrate should act with a certain amount of justice and fair play.
The SC in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 and also in Amarnath v. Haryana(1977) and Jadhav v. Shankarrao Pawar(1983) has held the following principles would govern the exrcise of inherent jurisdiction of the HC:
1. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party
2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice
3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.
It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).
In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail the provisions of section 482 and the power of the high court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by high courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations
in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ) a petition under section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to Supreme Court of India.
While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down following principles:
1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.
As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
In interest of maintaining independence of judiciary, Judges and Magistrate should be at full liberty to discuss the conduct of persons before them. However, While exercising inherent powers, the Court should observe and not violate the following three principles while expressing opinions on conduct of parties and witnesses:
1.) No person should be condemned without being heard
2.) The criticism of judges and magistrate should not travel beyond the record
3.) The criticism should be made without sobriety and due sense of responsibility.- Saulal Yadav case [1963 Raj 886]
Recent case laws
Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna [2009 (9) 768]
Here the Parties related to each other being members of the same family. Dispute was relating to a farm house. Both parties lodged FIR. In case filed against appellant his mother and sister, he was convicted. Final reports were prepared twice for the case filed by appellant against his mother and sister. Deputy Superintendent of police on the second report sought to obtain legal opinion of public prosecutor who was asked to complete the investigation and submit an appropriate report to the court. A petition was filed under Sec 482 of CrPC against order of further investigation, which was dismissed by the HC. The issue was whether
i) HC was justified in observing that valid grounds existed for granting bail to petitioners and
ii) HC was right in issuing directions for grant
iii) of exemptions from personal appearance
The SC held both in negative and remitted the matter to the HC.
State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand & Ors. [2009 (2) 457]
Powers possessed by the HC under 482 CrPC are very wide requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the instant case Complainant was married to Appellant 1. Appellant left for U.S.A in 1999. A case under Sec 498 I.P.C and S 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed. Complaint was treated as FIR and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. A divorce petition was filed by Appellant in 2001, which was granted ex parte. According to appellants, complainant remarried subsequently. Appellant filed petition under sec 482 before the HC for quashing of complaint. HC dismissed the petition, and this was subsequently challenged in SC. It was held that HC was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants.
State of Kerala v. Jabbar [2009 (6) 659]
The respondents lodged FIR, against appellant alleging commission of offences under sec 406 and 420, I.P.C and same was registered. Thereafter investigation commenced. Even while investigation was in progress respondent moved the HC under Sec 482 CrPC, seeking directions to the police to seize an amount of Rs 2,28,00,000/- from appellants claiming that he was entitled for Rs 1,28,00,000/- for facilitating registration of land under the MOU, which amount is alleged to have been withheld by appellants along with a sum of 1 crore, stated to have been paid by him to the appellant. In the said petition there was no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay on part of investigation agency. HC within a period of one month from the date of filing of petition, finally disposed the same observing that it is obligatory on part of respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witness, arrest, seizure of property, filing of charge sheet etc. HC further directed that if account is available with accused person or any amount is in their possession, it is obligatory on part of respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the respondent. HC accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete investigation within 6 months. The issues were
i) Whether it is open to HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482, to interfere with statutory power of investigation by police into cognizable offence.
ii) Whether such direction could have been issued by the HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482.
Court held both in the negative. Inherent power of the court is saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a Criminal Court if such interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of proceedings before a court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Such a power is always available to HC in relation to matter pending before a criminal court.
CONCLUSION :
Section 482 CrPC has a very wide scope and its really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely. Many a times it has been observed that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts. This section would enable the courts for providing proper justice and also should be exercised to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfill there personal grudges.
Paritala Ravi And Maddelacheruvu Suri's Violent Battle
An unending saga of rival factions between two families has now resulted in the shooting death of Gangula Surya Narayana Reddy alias Maddelachervu Suri, at Jubilee Hills in Hyderabad on Monday.
Suri, who was released from jail in December last year, was living in Hyderabad and Bengaluru after the Anantapur district court directed him to leave the volatile region.
He's alleged to have masterminded legislator Paritala Ravi's murder in 2005.
The factional rivalry between Ravi and Suri's families date back to the 1980's when their fathers, Paritala Ramulaiah and former MLA Gangula Narayana Reddy, started fighting over local elections.
The two families soon got involved in a feud when Narayana Reddy killed Ramulaiah in a war for political supremacy.
Later, Ravi's elder brother Paritala Hari tried to take vengeance against Suri's family but police shot dead him in an encounter.
Paritala Ravi reportedly then killed Gangula Narayana Reddy at a lodge in Anantapur in 1983. He was also accused in the killing of Penukonda MLA Sanne Chenna Reddy and his two sons Ramana Reddy and Obul Reddy as they were supporting Suri's family.
Later, in what's now an infamous story, Ravi is believed to have attempted to eliminate Suri by delivering a television set loaded with bombs to his residence in Maddelachervu.
Five family members were killed in the resulting explosion after they switched on the TV. Suri, meanwhile, was not at home.
Suri soon went underground and hatched a plot to kill Ravi.
In retaliation, Suri attempted to kill Ravi with a remote-controlled car bomb in Jubilee hills in 1997. Ravi escaped the blast, which killed scores of others. Suri was found guilty and imprisoned for life.
During this bloody feud, the Congress came to power in 2004, and Suri continued to hatch plots against Suri from Charlapalli jail.
He entrusted the task to eliminate Ravi to M. Rekamaiah and Julakanti Srinivas Reddy alias Moddu Sinu.
Suri's hired men soon killed Ravi's aide Malapati Venkateshwar Rao alias R.K, who's believed to have masterminded the television bombing.
Later, they hacked to death Tagarakunta Prabhakar, another follower of Ravi in Anantapur.
Finally, Ravi was shot dead at a district TD office in Anantapur in 2005.
Suri remains a prime accused in the murder of Ravi.
The former's killing today has given rise to rumours of all sorts. Police intelligence claim real estate and a property dispute might be the reasons for Suri's death. But many also believe Suri's own henchmen might have shot him dead.
Top Secret Plan Behind Suri's Murder ?
The latest sensation to strike the state of Andhra Pradesh is the murder of Maddelacheruvu Suri and after watching ‘Rakta Charitra’ his presence was felt strongly by many Telugu people. However, the manner of his assassination has given rise to few doubts and though fingers are pointing across various directions, here is the most probable analysis.
The real killers of Suri are the duo of Bhanu and Madhu as per present understanding. But it is widely a pre-meditated and well thought out plan albeit with few obvious flaws.
Let us assume Bhanu shot Suri and escaped into hiding. As per media’s statements, Madhu has reportedly mentioned about Bhanu doing the job. But then, nothing is valid till it reaches the court.
Let us predict what their plan could be.
Madhu (at court): “I was driving the car. Suri sat beside me. Bhanu was sitting behind me. Since, the weather was cool, Suri asked to switch off AC and down the window glass. But I said it’s not safe doing so and hence kept his window glass as it was and downed the glasses of rear windows. We were going smooth. I heard a cracking noise and suddenly pressed on brakes and stopped the car. I didn’t understand what was happening. Bhanu shouted loudly with fear, opened the door and got down from car and started running. I looked Suri who was lying down with blood on his shoulder. I understood someone fired and with fear Bhanu escaped. I looked outside and noticed two guys going fast on a Pulsar bike. I thought of chasing them. But I thought to save Suri anna first. I was shocked and got no other thought to take him to hospital. I closed the rear windows as well with fear. I’m still in shock and cannot digest the fact that Suri anna is no more. Police should catch the guys who shot and ran away on bike”
Court: “Why did you say Bhanu did the crime when asked you at the hospitall’?
Madhu: “I didn’t know what I was saying, I was in a state of shock due to the incident. I remember I was saying ‘yes’ for every question in shock. Now I’m saying with full consciousness. Bhanu didn’t shoot Suri”.
After a while, Bhanu will come out from hiding and he would give a statement.
Bhanu: “I was scared I will be killed by whoever killed Suri that’s why I escaped. But I have been following the developments in the media and felt that I would be held as the suspect, that’s why I came out to clear the confusion”.
Thus one culprit becomes Witness and other culprit becomes Acquit. They have planned in such a way that Court of Law had only Madhu as witness and none else. Had Madhu also ran away, both Bhanu and Madhu would become convict. But now taking Suri’s body to hospital, Madhu did a wise act to escape from court of law in the color of witness and also to bring out Bhanu as acquit.
Well, all this sounds like a perfect master-plan (probably carved by a Criminal Lawyer) but what both may not have realized is that, Suri’s followers have full realization of what has happened and it is only a matter of time before both will face the same fate like Suri. There are those who say that even Suri has made a mistake.
First, he should not have assigned his properties as binami on Bhanu’s name and even if he did, he should have given a part of his multi-crore wealth to Bhanu and Madhu with all rights to sell and lease, this would not have happened.
Let us suppose Bhanu and Madhu took ‘supari’ from some realtors or politicians or enemies of Suri. The amount that was offered as ‘supari’ should sound very less for Bhanu and Madhu. Suri would have taken care that way. Had Suri given away a few hundreds of crores earned through settlements for Bhanu and Suri from time to time, they would have treated ‘supari’ as peanut with huge loyalty on Suri. But now Suri killed himself by not assessing the desires of his yes-men!!
In a way, the chapter of ‘Rakta Charitra’ has come to an end but who knows…if there are big hands involved as it is being suspected, then they will have their end soon.
The real killers of Suri are the duo of Bhanu and Madhu as per present understanding. But it is widely a pre-meditated and well thought out plan albeit with few obvious flaws.
Let us assume Bhanu shot Suri and escaped into hiding. As per media’s statements, Madhu has reportedly mentioned about Bhanu doing the job. But then, nothing is valid till it reaches the court.
Let us predict what their plan could be.
Madhu (at court): “I was driving the car. Suri sat beside me. Bhanu was sitting behind me. Since, the weather was cool, Suri asked to switch off AC and down the window glass. But I said it’s not safe doing so and hence kept his window glass as it was and downed the glasses of rear windows. We were going smooth. I heard a cracking noise and suddenly pressed on brakes and stopped the car. I didn’t understand what was happening. Bhanu shouted loudly with fear, opened the door and got down from car and started running. I looked Suri who was lying down with blood on his shoulder. I understood someone fired and with fear Bhanu escaped. I looked outside and noticed two guys going fast on a Pulsar bike. I thought of chasing them. But I thought to save Suri anna first. I was shocked and got no other thought to take him to hospital. I closed the rear windows as well with fear. I’m still in shock and cannot digest the fact that Suri anna is no more. Police should catch the guys who shot and ran away on bike”
Court: “Why did you say Bhanu did the crime when asked you at the hospitall’?
Madhu: “I didn’t know what I was saying, I was in a state of shock due to the incident. I remember I was saying ‘yes’ for every question in shock. Now I’m saying with full consciousness. Bhanu didn’t shoot Suri”.
After a while, Bhanu will come out from hiding and he would give a statement.
Bhanu: “I was scared I will be killed by whoever killed Suri that’s why I escaped. But I have been following the developments in the media and felt that I would be held as the suspect, that’s why I came out to clear the confusion”.
Thus one culprit becomes Witness and other culprit becomes Acquit. They have planned in such a way that Court of Law had only Madhu as witness and none else. Had Madhu also ran away, both Bhanu and Madhu would become convict. But now taking Suri’s body to hospital, Madhu did a wise act to escape from court of law in the color of witness and also to bring out Bhanu as acquit.
Well, all this sounds like a perfect master-plan (probably carved by a Criminal Lawyer) but what both may not have realized is that, Suri’s followers have full realization of what has happened and it is only a matter of time before both will face the same fate like Suri. There are those who say that even Suri has made a mistake.
First, he should not have assigned his properties as binami on Bhanu’s name and even if he did, he should have given a part of his multi-crore wealth to Bhanu and Madhu with all rights to sell and lease, this would not have happened.
Let us suppose Bhanu and Madhu took ‘supari’ from some realtors or politicians or enemies of Suri. The amount that was offered as ‘supari’ should sound very less for Bhanu and Madhu. Suri would have taken care that way. Had Suri given away a few hundreds of crores earned through settlements for Bhanu and Suri from time to time, they would have treated ‘supari’ as peanut with huge loyalty on Suri. But now Suri killed himself by not assessing the desires of his yes-men!!
In a way, the chapter of ‘Rakta Charitra’ has come to an end but who knows…if there are big hands involved as it is being suspected, then they will have their end soon.
SRI KRISHNA COMMITTEE REPORT
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)