Police, Lies and Alibis. John Donoghue. Tony Barnes. Thief Taker. Fighting For Your Life.
Jackie Hyams and Lysa Walder. The Confessions of a Deliveryman 2. Jonathan Nicholas. Doctor's Notes. Dr Rosemary Leonard. More Confessions of a Hostie. Danielle Hugh. The Crime Scene Examiner. Vikki Petraitis. Life Behind Bars. Linda Tweedie. Confessions of a Doctor. Professor Stanley Feldman. Pets on Parade. Malcolm Welshman. Deadly Focus. Bundles of Joy: Two Thousand Miracles. One Unstoppable Manchester Midwife. Linda Fairley. Vet Among the Pigeons. Gillian Hick. What's Tha Up To Nah? Martyn Johnson. Tales from the Street: Stories of Police Work. Christopher Tipton.
Narrow Margins. Marie Browne.
Vet on the Loose. Welcome to Hell.
Classic Confession: Constable X's Initiation
Colin Martin. It Won't Hurt a Bit. Jane Yeadon. Confessions of a Hostie. Bath Times and Nursery Rhymes: The memoirs of a nursery nurse in the s. Pam Weaver. Pets in a Pickle. Malcolm D. Death Row's Oddest Inmates. Ty Treadwell. Jan Sumner. Sue Townsend.
Big Sam: My Autobiography. Sam Allardyce. The Silent Cry: There is little Kim can do as her mother's mental health spirals out of control. Cathy Glass. Keith Mashiter. The Rookie.
Killer Cop Confessions and the Banality of Evil in Manipur
William T. The World's Stupidest Instructions. Michael O'Mara. Remember there is an ongoing Supreme Court case on the allegation that there have been over extra-judicial killings by the police and army in Manipur in the last 30 years. This devastation does not end with hardened killers like Herojit, loyal only to their profession, or at least what they have been told is their professional duty.
dersgambspawordia.ml Nor does it end with their immediate officers who allegedly gave the orders for these illegal executions. It trivialises murder. The public tendency to laud the rebellion of Herojit is another indicator of the extent to which evil has become banal in the way Hannah Arendt conceived of it. The decades of legal sanction to killing and brutality had long begun to warp the moral outlook of the place and what is happening now seems like poetic justice in the midst of an extended drought of systemic justice.
But this anxiety, it must be said, is not new. In other words, it is not just individual actions but also the laws which sanction these actions which can be illegal. The High Court has agreed with the findings of the Trial Court on this evidence. The evidence that Deoman had in the presence of the witnesses, Shobhnath and Raj Bahadur Singh offered to point out the gandasa which he said he had thrown into tank was accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court has not disagreed with that view of the Trial Court, though it differed from the Trial Court as to its admissibility.
The evidence relating to the borrowing of the gandasa from witness, Mahesh, in the evening of June 18, , by Deoman has not been accepted by the High Court and according to the settled practice of this Court, that evidence, may be discarded. It was urged that Deoman would not have murdered Sukhdei, because by murdering her, he stood to gain nothing as the properties which belonged to Sukhdei could not devolve upon his wife Dulari in the normal course of inheritance.
But the quarrels between Deoman and Sukhdei arose not because the former was claiming that Dulari was heir presumptive to Sukhdei's estate, but because Sukhdei resisted attempts on Deoman's part to dispose of the property belonging to her and to Dulari. The evidence that Deoman slapped Sukhdei and threatened her that he would "smash her face" coupled with the circumstances that on the morning of the murder of Sukhdei, Deoman absconded from the village after washing himself in the village tank and after his arrest made a statement in the presence of witnesses that he had thrown the gandasa in the village tank and produced the same, establishes a strong chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible inference that Deoman killed Sukhdei early in the morning of June 19, The learned trial Judge held on the evidence that Deoman was proved to be the offender.
That conclusion is, in our view, not weakened because the evidence relating to the borrowing of the gandasa from witness Mahesh in the evening of June 18, , may not be used against him. The High Court was of the view that the mere fetching of the gandasa from its hiding place did not establish that Deoman himself had put it in the tank, and an inference could legitimately be raised that somebody else had placed it in the tank, or that Deoman had seen someone placing that gandasa in the tank or that someone had told him about the gandasa lying in the tank.
But for reasons already set out the information given by Deoman is provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered : and his statement that he had thrown the gandasa in the tank is information which distinctly relates to the discovery of the gandasa. Discovery from its place of hiding, at the instance of Deoman of the gandasa stained with human blood in the light of the admission by him that he had thrown it in the tank in which it was found therefore acquires significance, and destroys the theories suggested by the High Court. The quarrel between Deoman and Sukhdei and the threat uttered by him that he would smash Sukhdei's "mouth" face and his absconding immediately after the death of Sukhdei by violence, lend very strong support to the case for the prosecution.
The evidence, it is true, is purely circumstantial but the facts proved establish a chain which is consistent only with his guilt and not with his innocence. In our opinion therefore the Sessions Judge was right in his view that Deoman had caused the death of Sukhdei by striking her with the gandasa produced before the court. On the evidence of the medical officer who examined the dead body of Sukhdei, there can be no doubt that the offence committed by accused Deoman is one of murder.
The Trial Judge convicted the accused of the offence of murder and in our view, he was right in so doing. Counsel for Deoman has contended that in any event, the sentence of death should not be imposed upon his client. But the offence appears to have been brutal, conceived and executed with deliberation and not in a moment of passion, upon a defenceless old woman who was the benefactress of his wife. The assault with a dangerous weapon was made only because the unfortunate victim did not agree to the sale of property belonging to her and to her foster child.
Having carefully considered the circumstances in which the offence is proved to have been committed, we do not think that any case is made out for not restoring the order imposing the death sentence. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Court of Session.
It may be observed that the sentence of death cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. The High Court has not confirmed the sentence, but in exercise of our powers under Art. We accordingly confirm the sentence of death. I have had the advantage of, perusing the judgment of my learned brother, Shah, J.
I regret my inability to agree with his reasoning or conclusion in respect of the application of Art. The facts have been fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother and they need not be restated here. Das, C. The Commissioner Income-tax Supp.
It combines the English doctrine of the rule of law and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the American Federal Constitution which enjoins that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". There can, therefore, be no doubt or dispute that this Article is founded on a sound public policy recognised and valued in all civilised States The command of the Article is directed to the State and the reality of the obligation thus imposed on the State is the measure of the fundamental right which every person within the territory of India is to enjoy.
This subject has been so frequently and recently before this Court as not to require an extensive consideration. The doctrine of equality may be briefly stated as follows : All persons are equal before the law is fundamental of every civilised constitution. Equality before law is a negative concept; equal protection of laws is a positive one. The former declares that every one is equal before law, that no one can claim special privileges and that all classes are equally subjected to the ordinary law of the land; the latter postulates an equal protection of all alike in the same situation and under like circumstances.