When You’re Implicated

                        

Paving the way for increased transparency to the benefit of innocent citizens who often dread being entangled in criminal cases, the Supreme Court has delivered a historic verdict on the 7^th of this month. The Hon’ble Apex Court while hearing a petition in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India & Others has issued mandatory guidelines to law keeping agencies with regard to sharing the FIR with the persons implicated therein. To those who do not function in the realm of legal world, an FIR (First Information Report) is nothing but the first report of an incident which discloses the commission of an offence and which sets the criminal law into motion. In other words it is the FIR which lays the foundation for a proper criminal investigation. It is not necessary that an aggrieved person or a victim should file an FIR. Anyone who has any kind of information about any criminal incident may lodge a report of the same before a Police officer. There are nuances and guidelines that have to be scrupulously followed in matters of lodging and receiving FIR and the actions to be taken thereafter but that is a separate discussion altogether. What must however be clear to everyone is the great significance of an FIR for both, the informant / victim and the accused. It was naturally thus always a subject of debate as to whether in an environment where we are striving for greater information sharing and accountability, it was being unfair to the accused persons to keep them away from knowledge of a potential criminal litigation implicating them. In my considered view it was. Subject ofcourse to certain obvious exceptions such as matters of national security, terrorism, crimes against women (where the identity of a victim is of paramount consideration keeping in view her dignity sought to be protected) any and all possible accusations against a person should be available to his access.

After this verdict, which marks 15.11.16 as the final date for implementation, every Police Station shall be bound to give, within 24 hours, a copy of the FIR to the accused if the latter files for its copy either himself or through his agent. The Courts shall also be bound to supply the same within 2 working days.

The copies of FIR shall have to be uploaded on the Police website and /or the State Govt.’s website within 24 hours of its registration. This shall enable the accused to download an FIR against him and take timely steps for his defence or redressal. Exceptions are FIRs pertaining to sexual offences, sexual offences against children, terrorism, insurgency and of other sensitive category.

If a copy of FIR is not provided by the Police to an accused then he can approach the Superintendent of Police with his grievance and it shall be addressed within 3 days. Be it noted that when Police denies to give copy of FIR, it is always open to the person to move the Court where it has been sent to. Since as per law every FIR’s copy is mandatorily sent to the Magistrate’s Court after registration. Hence the accused can always also alternatively approach the Court for a copy.

Ofcourse an FIR being a public document (as per the definition of the term in the Evidence Act) information can be obtained about it by way of RTI Act. However that would only be information as sought for which is sometimes vitally different from the copy of the document itself. Further, an RTI application may be denied information on the grounds that it would hamper investigation. Hence, the Supreme Court verdict in Youth Bar Association of India has opened to the public realm what used to be a much clandestine area in the criminal justice delivery system. The only thing that troubles my mind is the consequences, both personal and larger, of having a FIR registered against me available to the viewing of the whole world. But then I recall the principles that run any welfare nation, ones that call upon its subjects to relinquish a part of their individual comforts when something sacred is sought to be achieved for the community at large.

We live in strange times, difficult no less where a part of our civilization is fighting hard to emancipate us and the other is applying its resources, for reasons best known to it, to offset that endeavor. Wholeheartedly pledging to the deeper spirit of the verdict and the benefits it aims to usher for the honest and the innocent against unscrupulous attempts against their liberties, I beseech my fellow citizens to honor that spirit and espouse what it seeks to redress and improve, an act which after all is only our solemn duty

P.S.    Readers are requested to peruse the Judgment for complete information.

Exploring Our Justice Delivery System

1. )            On Law Making & Myths About the Justice Delivery System

      " Avinash : You know, at times I really think that the law is aptly called blind. Why else is there 

                      so much injustice all around, despite libraries full of Codes, Laws, Regulations and 

                      Rules in our country. The discontentment has climbed upto an extent where people 

                      call law an a** . Ever thought why is it so ?

       Me :        I think it’s mostly because of the popular perception that law serves the interests of 

                     only the powerful and the privileged, while the un privileged suffer................... "

                    (Read more at On Law Making & Myths About the Justice Delivery System)

     2. )           On Free Speech, Media Trial & Prejudice

                   "There's nothing more sanctimonious in any democracy than the freedom of speech 
                    and expression. But we must understand that like any other freedom, it too is not 
                    absolute and it is subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions................"

                    (Read More at On Free Speech, Media Trial & Prejudice )


     3.)           Justice in Jeopardy... Why ?

                  " ....what is essential in this context is that when we read or hear against our judicial 
                    system we, as responsible persons, must also strive to analyse the cause (s) behind those 
                    facts.... "

                   (Read More at Justice in Jeopardy... Why ? )






        

About Bail

"The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State."        

                                                                      (The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India)

There are certain popular notions which I've heard from various quarters, concerning the granting or not granting of bail to arrested individuals. But before resorting to the legal phraseology for clearing those, let me just take a moment of your time in attempting to explain the concept of bail for persons who don't know it. Law provides for curtailment of liberty by way of arrest in certain prescribed scenarios. Bail is the security that a person is directed to give to the Court / releasing authority in lieu of the conditional freedom he is granted from such curtailment. Bail may be granted with or without surety. A surety is a person who provides security in lieu of the arrested person's release and undertakes before the authority to ensure that the latter abides by the conditions of his bail. In case of non abidance the surety as well as the accused may be proceeded against. Usually the surety may provide security in terms of his fixed assets or cash. Let's say that an arrested accused person's bail is fixed at Rs 20, 000 with one solvent surety for the like amount with the conditions that the accused shall co operate with the Police investigation and that he shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner and he shall not abscond or leave the jurisdiction of the Court without it's permission and that he shall appear on each date of his trial in Court. Then in order that the accused is actually released, he shall have to find a person who will stand surety for his bail and furnish security worth Rs 20, 000 which can be liquidated if there is non compliance with the conditions of bail. 

After the issue of jurisdiction of a particular Court to grant bail is determined, comes the question of consideration of the plea of bail. The Courts generally take the following factors into consideration while deciding whether or not to release an accused on bail:- 

• the seriousness of the offence in terms of its gravity and the nature of punishment provided for it and 
• whether the accused would be readily available for trial (Is he likely to abscond ?) and 
• whether he is likely to use the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence (threatening / intimidating / inducing witnesses). 
• criminal antecedents of the accused 
• whether there is a likelihood of the accused person's indulgence in any other offence (habitual offender) 

The fundamental idea always ought to be bail and not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences intimidating witnesses and the like, by the accused who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. Bail should normally not be withheld as a punishment if, after taking into consideration other factors, the accused is entitled to the grant of it. At the stage of considering the application for the grant of bail, the Courts do not go into the detailed examination of evidence as that would end up being biased to the prosecution case alone. Since at this stage no witness has come forward and spoken against the accused. Therefore if Courts while considering bail plea of the accused, express their opinion on his guilt at that stage, it'd amount to pre- judging the case basing only on the Police side of the story. Since the only materials available with the Court then are the Police papers.

Myths of Bail 

It is more often than not, believed that when an accused especially one with a high profile, is released on bail after being charged with a grave crime, it signifies that the justice delivery system of this country has gone to dogs. Most of us live under this notion that an accused, if released on bail is actually freed forever. That is not the truth. One must always remember that every civilized nation thrives on the same fundamental principle of justice delivery which says that no one can be punished without a fair trial and proof of his guilt beyond every reasonable doubt. That being true, how can we claim that once somebody is charged with a crime he ought not be released on bail ? That would tantamount to punishing him before his guilt is proved. Moreover when someone is released on bail, he is so released under certain conditions which he has to abide by at every cost. If the bailed out person is a habitual offender and he ends up committing another offence or threatens the witnesses etc. then the victim can apply to the Court for cancelling his bail and he will be back in jail.

I wish to emphasize here upon a certain crucial point of law. To grant or to not grant bail is always a matter of discretion of the concerned Court. No one can claim bail as matter of right, in a non bailable case , even if all the considered factors are favourable to him. Still the Court may refuse to release him on bail. Of course the accused may then approach the higher Courts for that relief. Somebody once asked me as to why then hundreds of under - trial prisoners are languishing in jails without being released on bail. The problem in their cases, mostly, is their inability to furnish surety, security etc for being released on bail. Many of them do not have anyone to take care of their case due to lack of money. The State does provide a SDC (State Defence Counsel) for handling their cases. But even then they are unable to furnish bail bonds or surety as that fund must come from their own pockets. It is very unlikely that the Courts will release them on their personal surety since it would be very difficult to secure their presence in case they decide to abscond. However today there are laws in place, which mandate an under trial prisoner's release without any condition after the passage of a certain period of time which, not in any case, can be longer than the prescribed period of imprisonment for the offence he's being tried for.

I wish to end by quoting a landmark interpretation of the bail principles by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Others (decided on 2nd December, 2010) . It reads as thus

"The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests, namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty."

(Readers are advised to carry out a further study on the issue for a detailed information on the subject of bails.)

Morality and Law

At the inception of my career I often encountered this nagging query concerning the relation between law and morality. I was frustrated on quite a few occasions where I'd helplessly discover that a certain immoral deed is without any legal consequence. I would seethe with anger at the lack of any remedy for the victim in such cases. To an untrained mind there would hardly exist any difference between the two concepts.   However, while morality may be persuasive, it isn't binding, law is. Hence a person may get away with an immoral deed but he can't do so with an illegal act. . Human response to a wrongful action should be the same irrespective whether it breaks a law or it disregards morality. This theory logically entails a comprehensive understanding of the two terms. But do we actually understand their meanings and respective scopes to be able to appreciate the fine yet profound difference between the two. Before proceeding let me tell you that I decided to share my views on this issue when I read the opinion of one my esteemed readers, wherefrom it appeared that despite his respectable understanding of sociology and politics, he faltered in distinguishing the difference between law and morality.

In one not so old case the Hon'ble Apex Court was seized with a question as to whether a man who promises to marry a woman, cohabits with her and establishes sexual relationship with her but could not ultimately marry her, be charged and convicted under Section 493 of the IPC. (For your benefit I have represented Section 493, IPC as it stands) " Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.—Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." The Bench which was adjudicating this case was a Division Bench (two Judges). The matter could not be resolved as one of the Hon'ble Judges thought that in such cases, what the man may have done may at worst be called immoral or it may be concluded that he isn't a gentleman, if deceit could not be proved behind his acts, whereas the other Hon'ble Judge thought otherwise and found nothing wrong in attaching criminal consequences with such acts. The matter was thus referred to a larger bench for adjudication. Be that as it may, the point which is thus instantly realized is that law and morality are not the same thing even though the fabric of our society is built upon these two founding stones.  In the ancient times there was hardly any difference between the two. Be it the jurists of Greece or Rome or our very own Vedas, morals formed the bedrock of laws. In later years, law would come to be distinguished from morals. The chief distinction being their respective sources. While morals have their genesis in religion and / or conscience, laws owe their authority to the State. Dr. B.N. Mani Tripathy, the celebrated author of "An Introduction To Jurisprudence (Legal Theory)" writes that 'Morals are concerned with the individual and lay down rules for the moulding of his character. Law concentrates mainly on the society and lays down rules concerning the relationship of individuals inter se as well as with the State." It is therefore quite clear that while morality is based on the behaviour, conscience building and goodness of deeds, law on the other hand deals with enforceable norms that mainly intend to maintain order and peace in the community of men. While laws are means to an end (of peace in society), morals are of no such nature. They are to be followed as they are good in themselves.

While it may be immoral to see a man drowning and not help him, to see a beggar starving and not feed him, to see a man falling down and badly injuring himself and not taking him to medical help or to look on at a woman being harassed and standing mute, there is nothing illegal per se about these actions / ommissions. For an act or ommission to be illegal, it must be mentioned to be so by law. If it isn't then that act or omission howsoever despicable or immoral it may be, does not involve any illegality. There are even certain laws which are opposed to morals. For example morals will never hold any man vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of another man, but the law does, in cases where the actual offender is under the employment or agency of the other man who is vicariously liable. e.g. A Govt. chauffeur if causes death of someone by negligent driving, then the Govt. can be made liable for his acts and ordered to pay compensation to the victim or his family.

So are we to conclude that law and morality are completely divorced from each other ?. Well, the answer is No. The interaction between law and morality shapes the administration of justice. People conversant with justice administration system are likely to be conversant with the hackneyed expression "Justice, Equity and Good Faith and Conscience". These terms are largely resorted to by Courts of law in administering justice which tend to uphold good morals, even when the law is not strictly conforming to it. Furthermore in judicial law making and in exercise of judicial discretion, morals play a vital role. When the law offers guided freedom to Courts in taking a certain action, Courts always look to morals for guidance in basing their choice on a sound principle. The view must be to accommodate law and morals in appropriate cases, The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in yet another case (Mr. 'X' vs. Hospital 'Z' (1998)) was approached to adjudicate that, whether in disclosing the fact that the boy is HIV +ve, to his fiancee the Hospital have committed violation of ethics of medical confidentiality. The Court in its wisdom decided that when two fundamental rights (here the fundamental right of the boy to protect the privacy of his medical condition and the fundamental right of the girl to a healthy and disease free life) are conflicting then that right which would advance public morality must be enforced. Hence in that case the morals demanded that the girl should know regarding any communicable diseases that her fiance might be suffering from, in order to take an informed decision regarding their marriage. Thus the Hospital was held to have committed no wrong in informing the girl about the medical condition of her soon to be husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has instructed all Judges to "keep their finger firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day" in order to be able to impart true justice."


Thus as different as they might be, law and morality are like the parallel tracks of a train line. They never seem to meet head on, but are always connected to each other by strong frames of societal requirements and its only when they are held together and uniformly throughout, that society can run smoothly to reach a destination of stability and justice.

The Conversation - II

(On Law & Justice ....)

Avinash : You know, at times I really think that the law is aptly called blind. Why else is there so much injustice all around, despite libraries full of Codes, Laws, Regulations and Rules in our country. The discontentment has climbed upto an extent where people call law an a** . Ever thought why is it so ?


Me: I cannot tell you any particular reason for that..Well, le'me see; I think it’s mostly because of the popular perception that law serves the interests of only the powerful and the privileged, while the un privileged suffer despite all the protection purported to be guaranteed to them by it. The anger is fixated on the high and the mighty who appear to be immune to the rigours of law. It's also because of the prevalent understanding that despite so many so called stringent laws, there are all kinds of crimes and wrongs taking lace in our community. I may further add here that besides the law itself, a part of the anger is directed at lawyers and Courts. The former are considered to be slick manipulators of the law and the latter to be incompetent and inept as hundreds of (presumed) guilty escape the clutches of law under the very eyes of our Courts.

Avinash: Is that correct ......factually ?


Me: Look, nothing is absolutely perfect. There's always gonna be a certain degree of deficit between the aim of any law and the achievement of that aim. What's important is that there must be a perpetual endeavor towards attaining perfection.


Avinash : Sorry brother, you lost me.


Me. I'll explain.


Avinash : Yeah, please.


Me: You ask any diligent student of law, as to whether a particular issue, if at all addressed by any law has been reasonably dealt with, by it or not. He'll answer it in affirmative. But if you then ask him whether it holistically resolves it, he may not always answer in affirmative. But that may be because the full extent of the issue in question may not have been fathomed at the time of framing the relevant law. It is not humanely possible to foresee every likelihood, however remote that might be, at the time of drafting a legislation concerning that issue or problem.


Avinash: Lost..Lost..Lost

Me: Ok ok...wait...Let’s, for instance, take the example of the Indian law against rape. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines what amounts to rape. Let me quote the legal definition of the offence for you and then it'll be better suited to explain my point. Section 375 of IPC defines that a man is said to commit “rape” who, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any one or more of the six numerated descriptions which are – firstly against her will or secondly without her consent or thirdly with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt, fourthly, with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believed that he is another man to whom she is married ,fifthly, with her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent and sixthly with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. There is one exception which says that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

The punishment for rapists is a minimum of seven years of incarceration and the Court may also extend it to a term of imprisonment for the whole of his life besides sentencing him to pay fine.

Avinash: OK.


Me: Now having heard about the law, I'm sure you would agree that if this particular section was drafted around the year 1860, various factors were taken into account to make it a fully armed provision to combat the evil of rape.


Avinash: You can say that.



Me: Well I'm not saying that. This provision of law has stood the test of time for over a century now. There is barely anything which it does not cover, under its six clauses.


Avinash: Yeah . It seems so


Me: Come 'on now Mr. cynic, stop critiquing for the sake of it, if you really think the law is insufficient, tell me what does Section 375 lack in ?!!


Avinash : I'm no lawyer but I think if the law is so full fledged, then the statistics of rape in this country ought to be something else.


Me: My friend, the world does not begin and end with drafting of a law. There are allied issues surrounding its efficacy and implementation, and of course the legal process of a trial where the truth is supposed to be revealed and the guilty be punished..Ok ? So I was saying that a century ago the law under Section 375 was enacted to punish rapists and it seemed fine uptil 1983, when the burning phenomenon of custodial rape hounded our society. Men in charge of important institutions were found to take advantage of their position and commit rape on unsuspecting females who had surrendered themselves into their custody for entirely noble purposes. So the law caught up with this evil by virtue of enactment of a series of four sections (Sections 376 A to 376 D) besides the revamping of Section 376 itself, in as much as it brought within its purview police officers, public servants, personnel in the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law or of a woman's or children's institution who are susceptible to misusing their position to ravish women under their care. It also made the punishment harsher for these class of violaters as it considered these persons to be under a far greater obligation to guard themselves against offending tendencies than ordinary men. More to this it also took cognizance of the alarming rate of gang rape, rape of pregnant women and rape of females under twelve years of age and therefore brought into existence the definition and punishment for these ghastly crimes, crimes which I'm sure were either unheard of or much less recurrent during yester - years.


Avinash: I see.


Me. Yeah!!. So what I'm trying to say is that no law is always fool proof. It's difficult to point out any law in any part of the world which has not been taken for a toss. The test is whether the roots of it are so reasonably firm that it could bounce back with force, even after being violated with mala fide designs.


Avinash: Why is it then that there is such pervasive disregard for law and its sanctions ? Why is that only if you are a land tiller or a impoverished stealer of goods you suffer the consequences of your wrong doings and the more affluent slither away from its rigours ?

Me: My friend, I'm afraid there's no strait jacket answer to that. I'll still try to allay your notions. In ancient times, in places like Rome, the cradle of legal history, law was evolved as a means to regulate the interests of a larger mass of people to the detriment of a erring few. It is said that the members of society came together and decided that they will unanimously relinquish assertion of certain rights for the greater benefit of regulation of order in their community. For example if all were to claim their right to walk on a particular road at a given point in time, then there would be complete breakdown of traffic, correct ?. Hence we have agreed that we'll relinquish our right to use the road when someone else is entitled to walk on it, that entitlement being left to be decided by that authority which is responsible for regulating traffic In short we've consciously trimmed our own cherished freedom, by virtue of a set of norms, in order to prevent chaos & anarchy.


Avinash: Right, right. Yes, I remember that story from my 12th Standard textbook, ummm. .. I forgot that author's name...ummm...Dammn !!!



Me: Don't sweat over it now.In any democracy, if you closely observe, the underlying principle of law making, you will discover that it is to subserve the greater benefit of the greatest majority. In India the law has been written on the cardinal principle that a hundred guilty might escape but one innocent man should not go the gallows. What one must immediately decipher from this philosophy is that the law has all kinds of protection writ into it for the 'not guilty'. Automatically therefore, it functions in a manner where it affords, to the innocent, all opportunities reasonably conceivable, to maintain that he's innocent. For example the burden of proving that a man is guilty is always, barring rare instances, on the party who makes such an allegation. The accused has to sit and wait till his prosecutor / prosecutrix succeeds in convincing the Judge that the accused is guilty. It's only after this stage has been reached at, that the accused will have to disprove all the evidence against him. Till then he can sit and relax. Though this principle does not hold good for a large number of mordern age crimes, yet it is the bedrock on which the criminal jurisprudence rests.



Avinash: Unbelievable..this is so outrageous. I get thrashed by you, looted by you and left for dead & I'll have to prove all this while you sit and enjoy my despair. Brilliant !!! That explains why there is such an appalling rate of convictions in criminal trials especially the ones, where the the accused is a man with contacts and the moolah. (fumes).


Me: I understand your loathing the system, but you must remember what I told you in the beginning; the law is written with an intrinsic safeguard against wrongful convictions, which is why, it casts the initial burden of proof on the prosecutor and not the other way round.



Avinash: I don't quite subscribe to this standard. To me it's a camouflaged gift to the cunning law breakers, a sort of encouragement to keep breaking it.


Me: Listen, you must understand that we are not a hardcore State like some of our neighbours, where accusation is often confused with verdict. To condemn a man, just because he's accused of something is not the sign of a healthy society. Let's in hypothesis, consider a case where you are seen standing near a dead body by some passers by. For all we know you could have been there to help him or rob him. During ensuing investigation, it's found that the deceased died an unnatural death under suspicious circumstances. No one knows who killed him and why. He was a vagabond with no criminal records or social acquaintances. The Police will definitely arraign you as the prime suspect and may be as the accused for murder.

Now if we are to go by your disownment of the existing standards of jurisprudence then imagine your harrowing condition in the trial, where for being wrongly picked up by the Police, you, instead of them will have to fight for your cause. The Police will then start habitually picking up anyone for any random crime, for it knows well that it has nothing to worry about as the poor fellow will have to work hard to save his liberty.



Avinash: But look at the cost we are paying for such a system. Its being brazenly twisted and steered for selfish ends. I don't know how many innocents, the system is saving from the gallows ,but it is surely protecting hundreds of guilty from being brought to book, as it lets them craftily manipulate law's inherent protection for the innocent, in their favour.


Me: What can I say my friend. You are cent percent correct. All I can tell you humbly is that it is a necessary collateral burden we must bear for upholding and maintaining the sanctity of our constitutional values and our ethics as a nation truly committed to equality of opportunity. Moreover I believe that its not the fault of the system alone, because when our founding fathers rested their faith on it, they did it on a bona fide assumption that their future generations will be sensible citizens devoid of corrupting vices. We have betrayed that assumption beyond every conceivable degree of treachery. When you say that a powerful man has manipulated the system, do not forget that he had several hands to aid and abet him in his malicious designs. Some persons somewhere must have made some concession in discharging their duty, for whatsoever motivation it may be, resulting in the victory of the manipulator.



Avinash: I must speak now of Kasab's case.



Me: Yeah, what about it ?



Avinash: Where hundreds of people saw him doing what he did on Close Circuit Camera TV, isn't it almost comical to again go through the detailed process of a criminal trial to prove his guilt.


Me: My answer is the same...I don’t want to recite. It may sound ridiculously outrageous, to offer someone like Kasab the same fairness of opportunity to defend himself, as is offered to any motorcycle thief. But you must realize that if we do not, it will set such ghastly precedence , that in future its example will be exploited to a regretful extent. I'll clarify further with two simple illustrations. Let's consider a case where, after a terrorist attack, the guilty are at large and there's such overwhelming pressure on the investigating agencies of our country, which is often seen in such cases, that it stages simpletons, either by coercion or by inducement, as the ones responsible for the attack. Now if the deeds are as ghastly as that of Kasab's then the prosecution will quote the precedent of Kasab's trial and demand skipping and short circuiting their trial, as was done in Kasab's case. If his plea were to be indeed entertained by the Court, then don't you think it'll be a travesty of justice. There is further a strong likelihood that the investigating agencies & the prosecution agents will become so addicted to such short - circuiting that, ghastlier the crime, the stronger their demand will be for hasting away with the trial process. Just imagine where we'll end up then.


Avinash: Hmm..


Me: Look Avinash, please do not misunderstand my deliberations as a complete support for the entire Kasab episode, I believe such actions must be responded with the harshest of deterrence, so that prospective criminals shudder before embarking themselves on similar pursuits. All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong in achieving that end by means which are established by the founding fathers of our nation. At the same time I'm not quite sure if I could be of the same supportive opinion about the duration of time consumed by the legal process in Kasab's case.


Avinash: Exactly, you just asked my question bro. What about that, eh ? Years and years of piling on of cases and their pendency in Courts. How can you even think of justifying it, while haplessly wronged persons wait endlessly for justice?


Me : I will not justify it, I can't, I don't want to, because its wrong.


Avinash : So much about the law and legal process but no sermon on delay in conclusion of trials ? I know there’s nothing to be said... Hey is that rain I feel on my skin or just the wayward spray of the waves ?


Me: No its gonna drizzle, I guess ? Hey why not go to that cafe there and grab something for our tummies. Talking makes me hungry, you know? ! I've heard they serve mind blowing noodles there, and we can always talk about the "Justice delayed is justice denied" issue over steaming noodle strands. What say?


Avinash ( yelling ) : Noodles, here we come (runs frantically towards the restaurant with his hand shielding his head from the growing drizzle, as people around look on, startled at such an unannounced display of enthusiaism)



Me: (To nearby on lookers ) Never Mind !!!...Stop you lunatic (chasing Avinash )





                                                                                 (...........to be continued in Part III)










( Read Part - I here )