New Enroll in RBI Grade B New Batch - Starts on May 21

    Question

    Delhi High Court issued guidelines for the protection of

    witness in
    A Neelam Katara case (2003) Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Naina Sahni case (2007) Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Uphaar Cinema case (2005) Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Parliament attack case (2006). Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Neelam Katara case (2003), in this case the petition to formulate witness protection in the light of public importance was presented before the Court. This was presented in view of protecting the interest of the witness and to safeguard them against the possibility of the witness being harassed or intimidated at the hands of the accused or any accomplices with the accused. In this light the High Court had formulated certain guidelines to be termed as “Witness Protection Guidelines” until a suitable legislation was brought into effect. This guideline was formulated in the present case of Neelam Katara v. Union of India, which is popularly known as the Witness Protection Guidelines Case.  Naina Sahni case (2007), Tandoor murder case: When a Congress leader killed his wife, stuffed her body in a tandoor and set it on fire. Naina Sahni was shot dead by her husband Sushil Sharma, a Congress leader and Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) back then, over the suspicion of Naina having an extramarital affair with Matloob Karim, her school-time friend, ex-boyfriend, and a co-worker-at the Congress party. Naina had been planning to leave Sushil and move to Australia. Sushil and Naina were having frequent confrontations over her alleged extramarital affair coupled with her decision to leave him and move abroad. Uphaar Cinema case (2005), The case is now considered a breakthrough in civil compensation law. Uphaar Cinema was owned by two brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, who were famous real estate barons in Delhi. The fire was caused by two faulty transformers that had been shoddily repaired. Public alarm and emergency lights systems were out of order and there were only two fire extinguishers available. Court convicted the Ansal brothers and other accused under IPC sections 201 (tampering of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and awarded a seven-year jail term along with a fine of Rs 2.25 crore for each in the case Mohammad Afzal Guru (June 1969 – 9 February 2013) was a Kashmiri separatist, who was convicted for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. Parliament attack case (2006).The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Afzal Guru despite the fact the court held that there was no direct evidence against him. The Supreme Court categorically stated that there was no evidence to show that Mohammad Afzal was a member of any banned organization

    Practice Next