Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

O Lawyers,would you accept or reject case of this RAPIST ?

Page no : 2

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     18 July 2010

Kasab continues to be defended. It is fruitless query.

1 Like

aditya vadali (LAWYER)     18 July 2010

YES THEY DO, IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR PROFFESSIONAL ETHICS. LATER THE COURT DECIDE TAT WETHER THE ACCUSED IS A RAPIST OR NOT, AS PER THE EVIDENCES PROVIDED.

IT IS HIS PROFESSIONAL DUTY AND NONE CAN OBJECT THAT.

1 Like

(Guest)

Anil Agarwal ji,if something already happening,it does not mean challenging that is fruitless.

Suppose a terrorist  has been video shot and witnessed by hundreds of people showering bullets and killing hundreds of people,and after being caught he accepts his crime also,yet if an advocate takes up his case and tries his best to save him in the name of professional ethics--then this advocate fellow does not what ethics are.

And advocating such criminals is not only unethical but fruitless effort also.

And  this advocate fellow is not serving humanity in no way.

1 Like

(Guest)

Aditya, perhaps you did not read the words typed by me carefully,I have written that a "hard core" rapist i.e. a rapist who is well known for his misdeeds appears at a office of an advocate,accepts his crime and requests to advocate to save himself from clutches of law.

All the advocate fellows who are ready to accept such cases in the name of professional ethics do not know ethics at all,these people are just have zero level of morality.If they have morality,they should just reject the offer of this seasoned criminal and suggest him to accept his crime in the court and get sentenced.But they will listen to all the misdeeds of such creepy fellow and then train him what to say and what not to say in court so that he may never be convicted and this they call morality/ethics.

And ethics are ethics only , there are not any professional and unprofessional ethics,if something is wrong ethically ,it is wrong ,it can not be right under professional ethics.Saving a seasoned rapist/killer  from law is not in favor of society and wrong ethically,How can it be right under professional ethics of advocates ?

And if someone has laid such wrong theories and transplanted into the minds to all the advocates giving them an impression that by doing they are doing some thing very noble,that person (transplanter) has done something very wrong with the  whole society. 

Many advocates are saying that it is not their duty see whether the client is criminal or not,it is the duty of the courts to decide who is criminal or not,all these advocate fellows are basically wrong..In our day to day life, we all are judges,we judge even before buying potatoes which one are rotten and which ones are healthy and good for us,why can't these advocate fellows choose that which client is rotten and will harm the whole society and which one is healthy for the whole society.

Finally suppose that seasoned rapist /criminal suppose has raped/killed daughter/sister of some unfortunate advocate brother or sister(while typing this tears are in my eyes,I do never want this to happen with anyone of us,that is why I have initiated this thread) ,Will my advocate friends save this criminal from law AND will they save this seasoned criminal from law so that he may do the same with daughters and sisters of some other members of our society.

What good these advocate friends of mine are doing to the society? please explain.

1 Like

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     19 July 2010

CCTV footage of Kasab shooting and killing people was there all along. If it was enough evidence, there was no need for the trial to hang on for one and a half years. When convenient videograph and taper ecordings are evidence. When not, they are discarded.

 

Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, Mrs. Gandhi’s two guards had shot her. After gunning her down, both threw away their arms and surrendered. Beant Singh was then shot on the spot. I would argue that after a man has surrendered, you cannot shoot him down in cold blood. That is mob justice, but funnily enough it wasn’t even a mob, the guardians of the law were responsible for his death. Beant Singh was an assassin, but even he was entitled to the protection of the law.

Beant Singh, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh had been sentenced to death by the HC.  Supreme Court found that the case against Balbir Singh was false.

If Jethmalani had not taken up his case, he too would have ended up at the gallows like the other too.

Should Jethmalani have taken up Balbir Singh’s case or not?

1 Like

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     19 July 2010

A correction. It was Satwant singh who was shot dead by guardians of law and not Beant Singh

Beant Singh and Kehar Singh went to gallows in 1989 (fast track disposal of mercy petition unlike that of Afzal Guru).

1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     19 July 2010

When a person complains at Police Station that his daughter is missing may be abducted by someone. The Policeman says, u just check she would have eloped with her boyfriend, off –handedly, and refuse to register a case. But when daughter of same policeman goes missing or got abducted by someone, he cries like anything. It all depends the way we look. Some time personal Interest prevails over national interest.

Likewise If a relative of a lawyer get raped and the accused get acquitted on the strength of money, what will be the feeling of aggrieved. Will they sing the song of professional ethics. Those who say boldly that I will defend him(that rapist) should not forget that they too will have live in the same society, and they too are vulnerable. It is mere luck which is saving them.

The vices of the rich and great are mistaken for error; and those of the poor and lowly, for crimes.  ~Lady Marguerite Blessington

Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.  ~Jonathan Swift, A Critical Essay upon the Faculties of the Mind, 1707

2 Like

(Guest)

I heard it time and again that a professional advocate has to accept every client how much heinous offence he has done.  So far so good.  That is why my learned friends on this forum have chorussed that they would take the case of a hard-core rapist despite his admission of his guilt in the chamber.  This is the same sentiment I heard from the most eminent advocates of the day on the T.V. Screen when they were defending the hard core criminals shamelessly in the name of professional duty.  Sirs, kindly devote the professional duties towards poor, who come to your office and cannot pay.  It is your duty not to turn them down.  Save the prostitute from pimps and police.  Save the battered housewives from sadistic husbands.  Save the contract labour from contractors, labour department and corrupt employers and put your efforts to get them regularised jobs.  Save the Bhopal gas victims, save the street hawkers from police "hafta". Or  is it that your professional duty awakens only when there is a bundle of currency and 24 hour exposure on T.V. screens for taking the case.

Once you take a rapist case, how can you save him?   It is your duty not only to take case, but also to save him.  You browbeat the prosecutrix or purchase her.  Your further purchase or threaten the prosecution witnesses just like "Chhadda in Damini".  You also purchase the P.P.  You go to forensic lab and change the test results and tutor the doctors to win the case.  You buy the judge, if that is possible.  Or if every thing fails finally give a statement in the court that the rapist would marry the girl to alleviate her miseries.  The judiciary is also happy to sing song with you.

How difficult it is for we advocates to keep our duty and to be morally high?   

3 Like

Ayub S. Pathan (Legal Adviser)     19 July 2010

Actually, Even if you witness any such crime, you as lawyer cannot decline to defend

the suspect,not accused. Every person is innocent unless proved guilty. As an advocate you have to

do justice to your job to defend and not to  client, the later is duty of the Court. Regarding the second question

it will be the duty of a lawyer to create a doubt in the mind of the court and exploit the probabilties. One of the  

nicity of  law is sometimes Truth may not prevail But the Justice shall. All the Ld. members have sung

in the same tune, which reflect the Sanctity of Law.

1 Like

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     19 July 2010

Let us challenge this also.

19/07/2010 - 10:17 p.m.

GHAZIABAD: In a shocking case of medical negligence, doctors at a government hospital here declared an accident victim dead and kept him in the mortuary but when his relatives came to take away the body they found him alive. 

What is that age old saying:

Black coat - 6 feet up.

White coat - 6 feet down.

1 Like

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     19 July 2010

That old man is called Mahatma and read what he said not now a century ago about the much flaunted noble profession:

 

At Rajkot another problem arose. As a rule, he had to pay a commission to the vakils who brought him cases. Gandhi declined to do so, it appeared immoral to him to give commission. His brother pleaded and Gandhi made a compromise. Gandhi was then earning about Rs.300 per month. He was not happy in doing that work, nor with the practice of falsehood all around.

 

Years later Gandhi condemned the high fees charged by lawyers and barristers in India where the law courts are run most extravagantly. They bear no relation to the poverty of the people. A lawyer can earn fifty thousand rupees to one lakh per month. Gandhi said: “A legal practice is not a speculative business. If we were not under the spell of the lawyers and law courts, we would be leading a much happier life. The lawyer’s profession teaches immorality. Perjured witnesses are ranged on either side, they sell their souls for money.”

1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     19 July 2010

Had money been only criteria, Manu sharma and Sajeev nanda would not have been convicted. Lnd. Prabhakar has rightly observed that how would u win the case, when everything goes against the accused, if u can not save the accused means u have cheated him.  A   lawyer should refrain from taking up frivolous cases, many follows this. Those who take up such cases of mafias, dons, professional criminal etc are called as "Devil's Advocate', a nice English horror movies, somewhat related with this topic, everyone must watch.

Kutchery(Court area environment) is a breeding ground of criminals, and nurtured by some greedy advocates. Geed breed greed.

Also once Hon. CJI K G balakrishnan had said . "It is the duty of lawyers to uphold rule of law and it is with the help of the members of the legal profession that a sense of security can be inculcated in the mind of the common man.”

2 Like

WHATSAPP 91-8075113965 (advocate)     25 July 2010

hi sirs,

a lawyer  "should  "appear in such cases, as per his professional ethics.he need not reveal isuch informations  to the police or any other authority, as it comes under his his privileged communications.
a lawyer should never say that he will appear for injured/victims alone.he cannot also.because, public prosecutors appears for the injured/victim, defence lawyers can appear only for the accused.

but,i have a disagreement with Mr. arvind.

i think, only lawyers have the right to keep secret the informations he got regarding the  offences committed by theircleints.but, doctors have to inform police, whenever such information is obtained.
salil kumar.p

advocate

thalassery-670101

9447536929

advocatesalil@gmail.com

1 Like

O. Haridasan (Service)     10 August 2010

After reading the question and the replies thereto, another question came to my mind.

"A criminal is awarded the punishment with death confirmed by the Supreme Court and his mercy application rejected by the President. He was to be hanged to death on, 15th July, 2008 and on 14th July, 2008 he had a heart attack. Now, the question is whether the doctors should or should not attend to him with all their commitments and professional ethics"?

1 Like

O. Haridasan (Service)     10 August 2010

Oh! The second question did not come in my posting:

"Whether the doctors would be justified in charging the person or the government for the medical facilities given to the convict?"

These two postings are just to continue with the interesting and healthy discussions and not taking side with or against anybody.

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Recent Topics


View More

Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query