Connect with us


Prosecution Opposes Adjournment Plea Of Gang-rape Defence



Prosecution Opposes Adjournment Plea Of Gang-rape Defence

Prosecution Opposes Adjournment Plea By Gang-rape Defence


New Delhi: The prosecution Monday raised objections in the fast track Delhi court hearing the Dec 16, 2012 gang-rape case and alleged that accused Mukesh’s defence counsel was trying to delay the trial by seeking an adjournment.

The issue was raised before Additional Session Judge Yogesh Khanna when Mukesh’s counsel M.L. Sharma told the judge that he would not be able to attend the hearing Tuesday as he had urgent matters in the Delhi High Court.

Calling it a “delaying tactic”, Special Public Prosecutor Dayan Krishnan said Sharma was putting extraordinary pressure to divert the proceedings of the case.

Krishnan told the court that Sharma should not be allowed to seek adjournments daily as he was deliberately “delaying and disrupting proceedings” in order to prevent a quick trial.

“Counsel (Sharma) is putting extraordinary pressure to divert the proceedings. Some ways or the other he is delaying and diverting the matter,” Krishnan said.

“If it’s a matter of one or two days, we can accommodate. But we cannot accommodate (adjournment) daily. Everyday there will be a problem,” he said.

When the proceedings started, Sharma refused to cross-examine the prosecution witness saying he was “not prepared”.

The court warned Sharma and gave him a last chance saying from Tuesday he would not be allowed to refuse cross-examination of witnesses who appeared in court.

“As a matter of last chance, I am deferring the cross-examination. But from tomorrow counsel have to cross-examine the witness the same day if they are present in the court,” said the court.

At the end of the hearing, Sharma said he could not appear in court Tuesday as he had urgent matters in the Supreme Court and the high court.

Krishnan said: “In every trial the proceedings should be speedy and once it begins, it should be day-to-day. And the trial in every rape case should be completed as expeditiously as possible.”

However, Sharma questioned the speedy trial in the case, saying there was no need of day-to-day hearing in the case.

The court also said that “its a serious matter” and counsel cannot delay it.


Pakistani Anti-graft body wants travel ban on Nawaz Sharif, kin



Nawaz sharif

Pakistan’s anti-corruption watchdog has asked authorities to place ousted premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son-in-law on the Exit Control List to prevent them from leaving the country.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) sent a formal request to the ministry of interior. The interior ministry officials confirmed that the NAB wrote that names of Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar should be put on the Exit Control List (ECL), which listed individuals not allowed to leave Pakistan.

The NAB argued that as the trial of the three nears its conclusion, it is feared that they would leave the country.

Earlier, a similar request to place name of finance minister Ishaq Dar on ECL was not accepted, allowing him to go to London and never return.

Sharif, 68, and his family this week filed an application with the accountability court seeking a fortnight’s exemption from personal appearance from February 19 onwards to let them go to London to see Sharif’s ailing wife. Three cases were filed against Sharif and his family last year, including Avenfield properties, Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment, and Flagship Investments.

Maryam and Safdar are accused only in Avenfield properties case. The NAB had filed two supplementary references against Sharif, his sons Hasan and Hussain regarding Al-Azizia Steel Mills & Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship Investment cases.

Continue Reading


Pakistan “breaches obligations’ on nuclear arms reduction, UN court told




The Hague: Pakistan is violating its “obligations” to the international community by failing to reduce its nuclear arsenal, the Marshall Islands told the UN’s highest court on Tuesday.

The small Pacific Island nation is this week launching three unusual cases against India, Pakistan and Britain before the International Court of Justice.

Majuro wants to put a new spotlight on the global nuclear threat, its lawyers said yesterday, by using its own experience with massive US-led nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s.

“Pakistan is in breach of its obligations owed to the international community as a whole,” when it comes to reducing its nuclear stockpile, said Nicholas Grief, one of the island nation’s lawyers.

Islamabad and its nuclear-armed neighbour India “continue to engage in a quantitative build-up and a qualitative improvement” of their atomic stockpiles, added Tony deBrum, a Marshallese government minister.

DeBrum warned that even a “limited nuclear war” involving the two countries would “threaten the existence” of his island nation people.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

In 1998, the rival neighbours both demonstrated nuclear weapons capability.

The ICJ’s judges are holding hearings for the next week and a half to decide whether it is competent to hear the lawsuits brought against India and Pakistan — neither of which have signed the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

A third hearing against Britain — which has signed the NPT — scheduled to start on Wednesday will be devoted to “preliminary objections” raised by London.

The Marshalls initially sought to bring a case against nine countries it said possessed nuclear arms: Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons.

But the Hague-based ICJ, set up in 1945 to rule in disputes between states, has only admitted three cases against Britain, India and Pakistan, because they have accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.

Pakistan’s lawyers did not attend Tuesday’s hearings.

It did however file a counter-claim against Majuro’s allegations saying “the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application” and insisting that the case is “not admissible”, said ICJ President Ronny Abraham.

Continue Reading


Bangladesh to drop Islam as official religion following attacks on Hindus



Bangladesh to drop Islam as official religion following attacks on Hindus

New Delhi: Bangladesh is likely to drop Islam as its official religion following a series of attacks on people from other faiths in the country. The country’s Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the status of the official religion of the country to Islam.

Bangladesh, which was declared a secular country after its formation in 1971, was declared an Islamic country following a constitutional amendment in 1988.

According to a report in the Daily Mail, the plea has challenged the declaration of Islam as the national religion of the country.

The move is being supported by leaders from the minority communities like Hindus, Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.

Bangladesh has 90 per cent of Muslims, 8 per cent Hindus and remaining constitutes Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.

In last month, a Hindu priest was hacked to death following an attack on a temple in Panchgarh district. Two others were seriously injured in the attack. There have been several lethal attacks on writers and bloggers.

According to a report in the Independent, Islamist groups Jumatul Mujahedeen Bangladesh and Ansarullah Bangla Team are believed to have carried out at least seven attacks on foreign and minority people in Bangladesh in the past year.




Continue Reading

Follow us on Twitter


Skip to toolbar