<link rel="stylesheet" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans%3A400italic%2C700italic%2C400%2C700">Criminal law Archives « Aam JanataSkip to content


This is a transcript of the original hand written letter, which can be downloaded here:

Tarun Tejpal's letter to Investigating Officer Sunita Sawant

Dear ma'am

I have received, and read, the order relating to my bail as issued by the Sessions judge and I am shocked and distressed at an observation that suggests that you have complained of being threatened or intimidated by me.

This is so far from the truth as to be outrageous. I categorically state that I have never ever threatened you.  The fact is I have been impeccably cooperative with you and your team from the very beginning. I flew to Goa on receiving the summons, and surrendered myself to you at the crime branch office. Even though there are many reasons to doubt the bona fides of the FIR, I did not display any rancour or reluctance in dealing with you.

There is not a single query that was put to me in my 10 days of police custody that I did not answer. There was no line of inquiry that I stonewalled - even though very often they appeared to have little to do with the case registered against me, and were more in the nature of fishing expeditions.

In my 10 days of police custody I was interrogated by atleast 5 different officers, ranging from the Dy. SP to Inspectors , and not one of them can point to a single question that I left unanswered or a single moment in which I refused to cooperate.

Apart from this I willingly underwent 2 days of medical tests of every kind at the GMC Bambolim - and here again no doctor or officer can state that I did not fully cooperate. Unusually I was also asked to undertake a series of psychological examinations at the institute of psychiatry and human behaviour, which I gladly did, answering over a thousand questions over several hours.

In addition I presented and handed over my mobile phone to you on the first day itself.

I had a perfectly cordial relationship will all your officers and staff. Leave alone intimidation or threat, there is not a single harsh word that I uttered to any of the crime branch staff.

Alas, by stating what you have, falsely - about intimidation - you have reinforced my fear that I cannot expect an unprejudiced and fair investigation at your hands. That the fishing expeditions, the selective gathering of material and witnesses, is all of a piece, part of a process not aimed at arriving at the truth of the alleged event, but at trying to indict me no matter what the facts. It is evident that the false allegations of intimidation leveled against me, was merely a ploy to sabotage my chances for grant of bail, and the fact that in your reply to my bail application before the Sessions Court, the fact of such intimidation was not mentioned suggests that the same was an afterthought and in abrogation from the principles of fair play.

This apprehension of facts being twisted and misrepresented is aggravated by a suggestion that I heard in court that I had confessed to some parts of the crime. I was shocked when during the course of the argument on my bail application, the Prosecutor made a statement that I have admitted to my guilt or to the narration of events as has been put forth by the alleged victim during my interrogation. I reiterate that I was interrogated many times, by various officers of different levels and I, in no uncertain terms disputed each and every allegation leveled against me.

If there exists any other statement on record, the same is not my statement and is an act of manipulation or tampering.

I write this in sorrow, and in deep distress. I wish you had done honour to my trust and cooperation.

My regards,


27th January 2014




Political parties in India are quick to heap insult and slow to give respect. When a restaurant in Mumbai made a controversial political comment on their bill, The Youth Congress reached there in large numbers enough for the police to shut down the restaurant (unless they forcibly shut it themselves, as one version goes). The charge was defamation. This was printed on the bill:

As per UPA, eating money (2G, Coal scam) is a necessity and eating food in an AC restaurant is luxury.

As per UPA, eating money (2G, Coal scam) is a necessity and eating food in an <strong class='StrictlyAutoTagBold'><figcaption class=AC restaurant is luxury." src="https://aamjanata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/aditi-restaurant.jpg" width="500" height="638" /> As per UPA, eating money (2G, Coal scam) is a necessity and eating food in an AC restaurant is luxury.

I suppose it is defamation. After all the Congress never claimed scams to be a necessity, and it is a false claim made about them on official stationery. But it is hardly a secret that in India, the line between defamation and educated view is one of class, rather than rule of law. India firmly believes in the concept of "jo hain naam wala wohin to badnaam hain", which means only powerful people get defamed, apparently, because look what I found.

"Consumption of arrack is rampant in tribal colonies of Attappadi. Liquor consumption by expectant mothers is one of the reasons for the death of infants. It is important that they shed the habit to maintain their health,"

This is Kerala Culture minister K C Joseph commenting on the large number of infant deaths from malnutrition among the tribals in the Attapadi adivasi belt, Kerala. Yep. A Congress minister. Instead of being concerned about abnormal number of babies dying, mahashay is blaming tribal women in bulk for killing their own children with irresponsible behavior. I guess it is good the tribal women are not heading to court over this defamation. Tribal women of Attapadi adivasi belt in Kerala are essentially being accused of wholesale infant murders.

And of course, if this is not defamation, then he needs to explain how he arrived at this information about the drinking habits of tribal women and also explain why tribal women of Kerala alone are drinking to extents high enough to cause large scale infant deaths and what the government is doing to prevent alcoholism among them.

Of course, if one wants to get into such things, there will be an abundance of quotes from almost every party. What is common is that it is the common man who gets squashed for speaking his mind, while the powerful may say what they like.

If the Congress is so keen on pursuing defamation, why have they not done anything against Subramanian Swamy, who has made a career out of defaming them in a far more high profile and public manner than the footer of a restaurant bill could ever dream of being?


29 March, 2013 -- In a bid to intimidate fenceline communities living around the Kalpakkam nuclear reactors, the Tamil Nadu Police has jailed 129 people of the 650 that were detained in wedding halls yesterday. Those detained were protesting to highlight that the nuclear complex in Kalpakkam was all threat and risk to the local community with no benefits either in the form of jobs or electricity.


Kalpakkam: Madras Atomic Power PlantA peaceful protest involving more than 1000 people was broken up by the police. Nearly 650 people peacefully boarded buses to court arrest. Given the peaceful nature of the protest, and the cooperation extended by the people to the police, those detained would normally have been released by evening. However, the Police invited a magistrate to the wedding hall where 129 people were detained, and filed two separate cases against them -- one case naming 27 people (mostly leaders and organisers); and another naming 102 people.


Prominent among those arrested are leaders of the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi and the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.


The police has slapped the following charges against the villagers:
Section 143 IPC: Punishment for Unlawful Assembly
Section 147 IPC: Punishment for rioting
Section 148 IPC: Rioting, armed with deadly weapons
Section 158 IPC: Whoever is engaged, or hired, or offers or attempts to be hired or engaged, to do or assist in doing any of the acts specified in section 141, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
or to go armed. or to go armed.-- and whoever, being so engaged or hired as aforesaid, goes armed, or engages or offers to go armed, with any deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.


All above sections are to be read with Section 7(1)(A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1953:
"with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or. . ."




Bera Murder Appeal Partly Allowed

By Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.

Thursday May 3, 2012.

The murder appeal raised important issues:

(i)           of excessive incarceration than maximum permissible under  which accused appellants finally convicted by Supreme Court .

(ii)          indiscriminate use of Section 302 IPC prescribing capital sentence rather than 304-B IPC in a case of dowry death.

(iii)        no bail to mother in law continuously for 14 years and one month.

Lawyer appointed by supreme court to defend  neglected to file bail application on behalf of mother in law for many years.

Briefly the facts are that a young woman named Mayarani was married to Gokul in West Bengal. A part of the agreed dowry was satisfied at the time of marriage. Both families were residents of neighbouring villages and belonged  to weaker section of society.They worked as daily wagers. A few months after marriage  Mayarani’s  in-laws started taunting her about lack of dowry, at her inability to do household chores, and on her physical attributes. Mayarani was a large boned well fed fat woman. She was addressed to as ‘Bhondi’ a term used in Bengal for fat women.

In the third year in-laws patience ran out and the and demand for ‘arrears dowry’ became a daily routine but no physical violence was reported to any one. However, in-laws encouraged her to commit suicide. They said a fat woman must bring a fat dowry. Finally, unable to bear the mental torture Bhondi escaped to her parental home from where she was returned to her in-laws with promise to pay ‘arrears dowry’. Bhondi and her mother were abused and insulted. And four days later at 2 PM news reached Bhondi’s parents that she died of burn injuries at 6 AM in the morning.

The medical evidence showed the body was charred. No external injuries were found. All internal organs- liver, kidneys, viscera was intact. In such a situation the doctor failed to find injuries and wrote ‘no cause of death could be found’. The police stuck to its strange version that Bhondi was killed by strangulation  in the matrimonial home by in-laws and then taken out and her body burnt partially and brought back to matrimonial home. The forensic report and  burnt  items seized from the crime scene said some other story which was hidden but not so cleverly as to escape scrutiny in supreme court. The doubts once raised about the veracity of evidence do not go easily.

The prosecutor in supreme court  was unable to show from record evidence of ingredients to prove murder. The appellants/accused [thru vijay panjwani] were shown not to have committed   murder . In a plea bargaining appellants counsel suggested conversion of   murder  to a lesser conviction of dowry death. For reasons recorded  the supreme court set aside the high court  judgment  on muder with life imprisonment and convicted the accused/appellants under section 304-B for dowry death to sentence already undergone. Husband and father in law were on bail since 2006 after 8 years incarceration and mother in law 14 years imprisonment in Midnapore Jail. The fine was set aside and bail bonds of the male accused persons discharged.It is for readers to form an opinion how this category of family cases should be tried.




Dt: 3-5-2012.



An all women team was denied permission to meet Soni Sori in Raipur on the 12th and 13th of January 2012. Soni Sory is a tribal and a school teacher who has been hounded by the Chattisgarh police for a while now. She was arrested in October 2011 soon after she managed to tell her story to Tehelka.

Since then, there has been concern regarding her well being. Tehelka had credible information about brutality against her and later she was examined in hospital after she complained about sexual assault in police custody. She was tortured and foreign objects were inserted in her private parts in the presence of a senior police official in blatant disrespect of a direct High Court directive to the Chattisgarh cops to ensure her safety. Her examination in Kolkatta NRS Medical college recovered stones from inside her "private parts". 

The group of women had applied for appropriate permissions and made repeated requests to meet her to ascertain her health. They had received an assurance from Principal Secretary, Mr. Baijendra Kumar in Delhi, in October. The state Human Rights Commission said that refusing access was not a human rights violation. They were still shuffled around without any conclusive permission or denial for two days and finally denied permission for security reasons. This was an all women's group willing to go through security procedures and meeting her in the presence of jail authorities.

Additionally, there has been no enquiry into her previous torture in spite of specific medical evidence.

Considering the history of sexual abuse and custodial torture against her by the police, there is every reason to believe that she may be in danger.

There are also concerns about the well being of other women prisoners.

The group demands immediate action against her torturers and their suspension pending inquiry. There should also be free access to visitors who wish to ascertain her safety.

I think that is a damn good idea and the very least that must be done. It is insane to return a victim of torture to those who tortured her and it is inexplicable as to why said victim is not allowed visitors when she is still an undertrial.

To me, this looks very suspiciously like they don't want anyone to know her condition.

Information sourced from http://twtvite.com/hi4nly