Dakshina Kannada,:

The Mangaluru Sixth Additional District and Sessions Court on Tuesday acquitted 40 persons accused in the infamous 2012 Mangaluru ‘homestay attack’ case citing lack of evidence.

The police had booked a case against 44 persons in this connection. Of them, three died during trial while the charges against a journalist were dropped by the government.

On July 28, 2012, members of the Hindu Jagaran Vedike attacked a birthday party attended by young men and women at the Morning Mist homestay near Padil in Mangaluru. After a probe, the Mangaluru Rural Police submitted a charge-sheet against 44 accused individuals.

The attack was allegedly led by Hindutva leader Subhash Padil, who claimed that young people were engaging in indecent activities after consuming alcohol.

During the attack, the Hindu Jagaran Vedike members allegedly stripped the women and assaulted at least 12 persons.

Two video journalists were also arrested in connection with the case. The case against one of the journalists was withdrawn by the government led by CM Siddaramaiah, leading to his acquittal in 2018.

The State Women’s Commission also investigated the incident and submitted a report to then Home Minister R. Ashoka, recommending a probe by a team headed by a DIG-rank officer in the backdrop of the ‘police failure’ and the nature of the attack.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court emphasised on Wednesday that all citizens and undertrial prisoners are entitled to a nutritious diet, without any distinctions based on their social or financial status.

This observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna while hearing a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, who is jailed in the Renukaswamy murder case.

Darshan had challenged a magistrate court order that rejected his request for home-cooked food, bedding, and cutlery in prison.

Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing Thoogudeepa, argued that the actor required nutritional food as indicated by a medical certificate.

Justice Nagaprasanna said, “If he needs a special diet due to health issues, doctors will provide it. This is not just about Darshan; every citizen or undertrial prisoner has the right to nutritious food. Distinctions cannot be made based on one’s status.”

The judge further noted, “Medical requirements will be met for anyone, whether a celebrity or not. There are many prisoners who may also need a better diet.”

Mr Navadgi contended that the Magistrate court misinterpreted Rule 728 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, which governs conduct within prisons.

He argued that this rule cannot override the Prison Act, specifically Section 30, which allows for home-cooked food for undertrial prisoners with the necessary approvals.

However, the court maintained that while Section 30 outlines the procedure, the Prison Manual provides the guidelines for regulation, a principle that is statutorily accepted.

Mr Navadgi requested that the authorities objectively consider Darshan’s request for home-cooked food and other amenities in consultation with a medical officer.

The Special Public Prosecutor informed the court that two representations had been made to the authorities and requested two weeks to consider them and issue appropriate orders.

Justice Nagaprasanna directed the respondents to review the representations according to the law and present their findings on August 20. The court also noted that the issue raised requires a thorough examination and will remain pending until the authorities provide a resolution.

Darshan along with his friend Pavithra Gowda and 15 others was arrested for allegedly giving a torturous death to his fan Renukaswamy from Chitradurga on June 8.

Renukaswamy had allegedly sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda on his social media handle. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

A Court in Bengaluru on Thursday rejected a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, who is in judicial custody in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case, seeking a direction to the prison authorities to permit him to have access to home food in the jail. He had also sought cutlery, clothing, bedding, and books to be supplied by his family members.

The Karnataka High Court had earlier this month directed Darshan to approach the Magistrate court in this regard.

In his petition, Darshan also said that he had lost several kilograms of weight as he was unable to eat and digest the food provided at the prison. It was also mentioned that the actor suffered from diarrhoea and the prison doctors diagnosed it to be a case of food poisoning.

According to the petitioner, Section 30 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, allows undertrial prisoners to receive these materials subject to examination and to such rules as may be approved by IGP (Prisons). Rejecting Darshan’s petition, the court, citing jail regulations, noted that facilities as sought by the actor cannot be extended to a murder-accused.

According to police sources, 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan of the actor, had sent obscene messages to Darshan’s close friend Pavithra Gowda, a co-accused in the case, which enraged the actor, allegedly leading to his murder. His body was found near a storm-water drain next to an apartment in Sumanahalli here on June 9. Raghavendra, one of the accused who is part of Darshan’s fan club in Chitradurga, had brought Renukaswamy to a shed in R R Nagar here, on the pretext that the actor wanted to meet him. It was in this shed that he was allegedly tortured and murdered on June 8.

According to the post-mortem report, Renukaswamy, a native of Chitradurga, died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple blunt injuries.

Police sources said Pavithra, who is accused number one, was the “major cause” for Renukaswamy’s murder, claiming that it has been proved from the probe that she instigated other accused, conspired with them, and took part in the crime.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court has recalled its recent order, which stated that only viewing child pornography is not an offence under the IT Act.

A division bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna withdrew the order stating that the bench had earlier ‘misread’ Section 67B (b) while passing the order on Thursday.

“We are also human beings and mistakes do happen on our side. There is always an opportunity for corrections. An inquiry will be done in this regard and a new order will be delivered. This order is cancelled,” the bench said.

It also noted that the order was passed under Section 67B (a) of the IT Act, following a petition filed in this regard by the state government.

Section 67B (b) of the IT Act states that creating text or digital pictures, collecting, searching, browsing, downloading, making advertisements, circulating, exchanging, or picturising children in an obscene, indecent manner is open for investigation under the section.

The high court had earlier observed that only watching child pornography is not an offense under the provisions of the IT Act, granting relief to a man accused of viewing a website containing child pornography for 50 minutes.

The complaint was registered against the petitioner under Section 67B of the IT Act (publishing or transmitting material containing children) in March 2022.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 67B could not be applied in the case as his client had only viewed the website, and not circulated anything.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The High Court of Karnataka has observed that the government’s failure to provide basic infrastructure in schools is pushing people who cannot even afford three meals a day to send their children to private schools.

“Is education reserved for the privileged,” the HC bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit questioned while hearing a public interest litigation initiated by the court in 2013 based on media reports about children who were left out of the schooling system.

The court said that the deficiencies in government schools regarding the lack of restrooms and drinking water facilities were brought to its notice in 2013 but action has been lacking.

Till date, 464 government schools lack restrooms and 32 do not have drinking water facilities, the court pointed out.

Expressing its displeasure at the government’s inaction, the court directed that an affidavit on providing basic facilities in all schools should be filed within eight weeks.

“Is it for us to tell all this to the state? This has been going on for so many years. There must have been some amount shown in the budget for the schooling and education department. What happens to that amount,” the court said on Monday.

During the hearing, while referring to the state government’s free schemes for the poor, the court said it had no qualms about such measures but providing necessary facilities and infrastructure in schools where poor students study should be of paramount importance.

“Education is a fundamental right. But governments have failed to provide the facilities in government schools which are turning the poor towards private schools,” the court said. This was indirectly helping private schools, it said.

“Because of the lack of basic facilities, the government schools are closed. On the other hand, as there is no other option, parents even when they are financially not well or sound are left with no choice but to admit their wards to the alternate private schools. The learned counsel is also justified in submitting that such a situation frustrates the object of making primary education a fundamental right as ensured in the Constitution of India,” the court recorded in its order.

The High Court said that Babasaheb Ambedkar is shown with a book in every image of his which was to show the importance of education. Many developed countries spend more on education than on defence, the court observed.

Allowing time for the comprehensive report by the government, the court recorded that, “The government advocate submits that as the copy of the report prepared by the learned amicus is handed over to her, she will personally look into it and call up the concerned government officials.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

 The High Court of Karnataka has said that sympathy towards stray dogs by way of feeding them should not come at the cost of creating chaos and danger to the public.

The division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) on the state government’s alleged delay in implementing the Animal Welfare Board’s guidelines, said, “Duty is cast upon such citizens (dog feeders) to ensure that activity shall not cause hindrance or health hazard to his fellow citizens.” The HC said the government was delaying its response to the petition. Directing the government to rectify its behaviour, the high court gave it three weeks to file objections to the PIL. It warned that the court may have to issue orders against the government if there is further delay.

During the hearing, the court observed that citizens too have a stake in the issue, and feeding animals in undesignated places causes health hazards and other problems.

“The common experience is that except feeding of street dogs, there is no incident being reported that such citizens are coming forward to assist public bodies in the exercise of sterilisation or vaccination of stray dogs,” the HC noted.

About feeding stray dogs, the HC said, “I don’t mind showing some sympathy to animals but not at the cost of the chaos created. Feeding stray dogs in undedicated locations would certainly cause some apprehension in the minds of school-going children and the possibility of some stray dogs rushing towards school-going children cannot be ruled out.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The High Court of Karnataka today observed that it would be suitable if an age limit was introduced for using social media akin to the legal age for drinking alcohol.

A division bench of Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil made the observation while hearing an appeal by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the single judge order of June 30 which had dismissed its plea to the takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY).

MeiTY had under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act between February 2, 2021 and February 28, 2022 issued 10 Government Orders directing it to block 1,474 accounts, 175 Tweets, 256 URLs and one hashtag. Twitter challenged the orders related to 39 of these URLs.

“Ban social media. I will tell you a lot of good will come. Today’s school going children are so addicted to it. I think there should be an age limit such as in Excise rules,” Justice G Narendar noted.

The court further observed that “children may be 17 or 18. But do they have the maturity to judge what is or is not in the interest of the nation? Not only on social media, even on the Internet things should be removed, it corrupts the mind. Government should consider bringing in an age limit for the use of social media.”

The court had also imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakh on X Corp. X Corp’s counsel argued that MeiTY had not informed the users about blocking their tweets and accounts and even the company was forbidden from informing them.

The high court asked the government “You do not release the order. He is not permitted to reveal the order. How is he going to defend himself?”

The high court suggested that the government may have to tweak the rules a bit as it is at the government’s discretion that X Corp is blocking the accounts of users and the company cannot be left high and dry.

However, the high court said that “When it comes to national security, everybody has to be on the same page.” When the counsel for the company argued that it had informed which order of MeiTY it can comply with and which it could not, the bench said X Corp cannot be the judge.

The court said the X Corp “cannot be given the right to judge the content. If the content says ‘Apple a day keeps the doctor away’, you will interpret that as being against the doctor and the interest of the nation?”

The hearing of the case was adjourned to Wednesday when the high court will decide on the interim relief sought by X Corp. The hearing of the appeal will be heard after that, the court said.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

In cases related to compensation claims in road accidents, the case is not expected to be proved like a criminal trial, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

“It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The court must keep this distinction in mind,” the court said recently while dismissing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded to an accident victim’s family.

The Division Bench of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai K was hearing two appeals — one filed by Bajaj Allianz Insurance and another filed by Chikka Thayamma and Rame Gowda, the parents of one Divakar M R who died in an accident on August 13, 2019.

Divakar met with an accident near Durgaparameshwari Temple in Nagarabhavi while riding a motorcycle.

A car is said to have caused the accident resulting in his death in a nearby private hospital where he was taken for treatment. Divakar was working in a bar and restaurant and earning Rs 18,000 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs 15,43,600 to the parents of Divakar. They approached the HC seeking enhancement of compensation. The insurer approached the HC stating that the complaint about the accident did not mention the involvement of the car and it was the negligence of Divakar that had resulted in his death.

The HC, in its judgement, said strict proof of the accident need not be proved by the claimants for compensation.

“A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,” the HC said.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the insurer, the HC said: “The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. Therefore, the domain it is vested with the tribunal in appreciating evidence in terms of social justice and it should be extended and considered to a greater extent but not in conjectures and surmises but more credentiality must be given to that aspect.

The HC also found the compensation awarded by the MACT to be correct and dismissed the appeal of the victim’s parents for enhancement.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)