top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

Man gets death for minor’s rape, murder

Mumbai | Nashik: A Nashik Special Fast Track Court has awarded the death sentence to a 25-year old man who was convicted last week for luring a 4-year-old girl with a chocolate, kidnapping, raping and murdering her, here on Friday. Terming the case as the ‘rarest of rare’ crimes, the Special Judge K. D. Paldewar – who had found Vijay Sanjay Khairnar guilty of kidnap, sexual assault and murdering the child on Sep. 30 but reserved the verdict after the final arguments on Oct. 7 – pronounced the...

Man gets death for minor’s rape, murder

Mumbai | Nashik: A Nashik Special Fast Track Court has awarded the death sentence to a 25-year old man who was convicted last week for luring a 4-year-old girl with a chocolate, kidnapping, raping and murdering her, here on Friday. Terming the case as the ‘rarest of rare’ crimes, the Special Judge K. D. Paldewar – who had found Vijay Sanjay Khairnar guilty of kidnap, sexual assault and murdering the child on Sep. 30 but reserved the verdict after the final arguments on Oct. 7 – pronounced the capital punishment today. He also slapped a fine of Rs 10 lakhs as compensation to the victim’s family, hailing from Dongrale village before a packed courtroom where the villagers, the victim’s family and others were present. Emerging from the courtroom after the verdict, Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam told the media that “the Court had considered the gravity of the crime and the circumstantial evidence establishing Khairnar’s involvement” while deciding the sentence. The Court did not take into account the convict’s poverty – he was a daily wager – or illiteracy as grounds for leniency, added the ace criminal lawyer. It was on Nov. 16, 2025 in Dongrale village of Malegaon taluka when Khairnar lured the little girl on the promise of giving her a chocolate and took her to a desolate spot to carry out his devious plans. Betraying the trust of the child who used to call him ‘dada’ (elder brother) due to their acquaintance, Khairnar sexually assaulted her, killed her and abandoned her before decamping from there. A few hours later, the child’s body was found dumped in a nullah and the police were summoned. As details of the gruesome crime tumbled out and spread, it ignited widespread public outrage all over the state. The police swung into action, formed several probe teams and managed to track down Khairnar from his hideout within a few hours. Considering the sensitivity of the crime, the strong emotions plus the mass furore it created, the state government assigned the case to a fast-track court, assigned Nikam as the SPP and the matter was heard speedily. The SPP aggressively led the prosecution, arguing in the court that in view of the gravity of the crime, the circumstances leading to it and other aspects, it warranted the severest punishment – death – for Khairnar, irrespective of his age or financial status. The Dongrale villagers stood in solidarity with the victim’s family and they raised a chorus for quick investigations, an expeditious trial and slapping the death penalty on the convict to serve as a strong deterrent to potential offenders. As per the Indian law, the trial court’s verdict will now go to the Bombay High Court for confirmation. Political leaders from different parties hailed the court verdict and said “justice has finally been done to the victim’s family”.

Federal Overreach

Correspondent
May 23, 2025
2 min read

India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) has in recent years acquired a reputation as one of the most feared arms of the state. Empowered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), it has gone after a long list of political opponents, business houses and state agencies. Yet in doing so, it has often invited criticism for its opaque methods, selective targeting and timing that suspiciously coincides with election cycles.


This week, the Supreme Court gave the agency a well-deserved rap on the knuckles. At the same time, it should be careful not to clip its wings entirely. The Court directed the ED to temporarily halt its investigations into the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), the state-run liquor distribution monopoly, and questioned its sweeping raids on liquor outlets and state offices. In a rebuke laden with constitutional undertones, the bench warned the agency against undermining federal governance.


The message from the judiciary was clear: the Centre must not weaponize national agencies to destabilise state governments. The ED had been investigating alleged corruption involving transport of liquor, bar licences and tender manipulation in collusion with private firms. It claimed to have unearthed unaccounted cash worth Rs. 1,000 crore and manipulated pricing data, but did not name TASMAC as an accused in the predicate offences, a legal prerequisite under the PMLA. The raids, then, seemed both premature and overbroad.


The ruling DMK, which runs Tamil Nadu, predictably cried vindication. It accused the BJP-led central government of unleashing the ED to malign the state’s image and erode public trust ahead of elections.


But this is where nuance is required. The ED is not by definition an instrument of vendetta. While it has certainly been misused for political ends, it also serves a necessary function in unearthing financial crimes that local enforcement bodies are either unwilling or unable to pursue. The Supreme Court, in safeguarding federalism, must also ensure it does not render the ED toothless. To stay investigations is one thing; to issue blanket indictments of the agency’s conduct is quite another.


A more reasoned approach is to insist on procedural rigour. The ED must register predicate offences properly and establish material links before initiating raids. Courts must hold the agency to these standards but not presume malice where there may be incompetence or overenthusiasm. Tamil Nadu’s Excise Minister called the entire operation a “political vendetta.” It may well be, but even vendettas can uncover inconvenient truths. The Supreme Court must continue to be a check on executive excess but it should also nudge the ED to introspect and professionalise. After all, financial malfeasance does not respect political colours, and states are not immune to corruption merely by virtue of opposing the Centre. The ED, if it wishes to retain credibility, must stop behaving like an arm of the ruling party. At the same time, the judiciary must avoid demoralising a crucial investigative agency with unmeasured censure. Balance, in a federal democracy, is not weakness but constitutional strength.

Comments

bottom of page