Policeman accused in anti-Sikh riots will get compensation, Supreme Court gives verdict
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered pension revision and other benefits to a retired police officer accused of negligence of duty and misconduct during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of Durga Prasad, the then SHO of Kingsway Camp police station, and said that arrests were made, lathicharge was done and firing was done.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed revision of pension and other allowances to a former policeman charged with negligence on duty and indiscipline during the 1984 anti-Sikh violence.
The bench consisting of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Mishra admitted the appeal by then SHO Kingsway Camp police station Durga Prasad and stated that arrests were carried out, lathicharge was implemented and firing was carried out.
The Supreme Court was considering a plea filed by Durga Prasad against an order of the High Court. The High Court order instructed the disciplinary authority to pass an order of punishment against him once again. Prasad was charged by his department with negligence in containing the riot in his jurisdiction as SHO.
The bench said that given the limited force available, the focus was on saving important installations and potential targets. The senior officer appearing as a defence witness said that the appellant did a commendable job with the limited resources available to him.
The Supreme Court noted that the witness was also part of the team that controlled the riots, but no chargesheet was filed against him. Therefore, the investigating officer relied on his statement. Most importantly, there was no evidence to show that the police was sitting idle.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that there is a growing trend of dowry victims accusing husband's relatives. Also, it dismissed a dowry harassment case against a woman's in-laws.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra said, it appears that the allegations against the woman's sister-in-law, husband and father-in-law are of a general nature. It also said that there is no allegation of any kind of physical harassment by the appellant.
The bench said, 'The allegation is only of taunting and making statements that they are high-level people who have political influence and have connections with ministers, in this way accused one (husband) to accused three (husband's parents) pressurized the real complainant to bring additional dowry.'
The apex court said in the order, 'In view of the increasing trend of blaming the husband's relatives by the dowry victim, this court has condemned the practice of involving the husband's relatives for the crime under section 498A of IPC and section-four of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.'
The complainant in this case was married in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in 2014. The woman left her husband after five months of marriage.
