Question
Delhi High Court issued guidelines for the protection of
witness inSolution
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
Two statements are given below and they are labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R).
Assertion (A): River Narmada flows eastward.
Reason ...
Statements:
No mothers are father.
Some father is son.
Only a few son is daughter.
Only a few daughters is child.
...
In the question, assuming the given statements to be true, find which of the conclusion (s) among given conclusions is /are definitely true and then giv...
Select the option that is related to the third number in the same way as the second number is related to the first number and the sixth number is relate...
Find the missing term in the series given below.
1AZ, 4DW, ____, 10JQ
In the following question, select the related word pair from the given alternatives.Â
Poem: Poetry
If all the digits of the number '65735824843' are written in increasing order from the left end, then what is the sum of third digit from the right end ...
Select the word pair in which the two words share a different relationship from that shared by the two words in the rest of the word pairs.
Statements:
All Jasmine are Sunflowers.
Only a few Sunflowers are Tulips.
No Tulip is Rose.
Conclusions:
I. All Jasmi...
Eight colleagues KZ, LZ, MZ, NZ, OZ, PZ, QZ and RZ are seated in a circle facing the centre. NZ is an immediate neighbour of both LZ and QZ. PZ is an im...