Ujjain Court convicts 5 lawyers for assault on senior journalist, stressing that advocates, though well-versed in law, defied justice and dignity of court premises in a shocking attack.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UJJAIN: In a ruling, the Ujjain District Court in Madhya Pradesh handed prison sentences to five lawyers for brutally assaulting senior journalist Ghanshyam Patel inside the court premises. The court strongly emphasized that advocates, being officers of the court, are expected to uphold the dignity of law and justice, not undermine it.
The Incident
The case dates back to February 2009, when Patel, a senior journalist, had gone to the Ujjain District Court to depose in a criminal matter. During his testimony, lawyer Dharmendra Sharma got into an altercation with him, using abusive language. Following this, an FIR was registered against Sharma.
The very next day, Patel visited the court again to meet his advocate. It was then that he was surrounded by the accused lawyers, Dharmendra Sharma, Shailendra Sharma, Bhavendra Sharma, Purushottam Rai, and Surendra Sharma. According to court records, they taunted him, saying,
“You’re acting like a big shot. Don’t mess with advocates.”
Shailendra Sharma allegedly picked up an iron chair and struck Patel on the head, leading to serious injuries.
The Verdict
On Thursday, District and Additional Sessions Judge Shrikrishna Dagliya delivered the judgment, sentencing:
- Dharmendra Sharma, Shailendra Sharma, Bhavendra Sharma, and Purushottam Rai, seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
- Surendra Sharma, three years of simple imprisonment, considering his advanced age of nearly 90 years.
The court took into account the gravity of the offence, stressing that the assault took place within court premises, a place revered as a “temple of justice.” The judge highlighted that the accused, being lawyers, were well aware of the law yet chose to act in complete disregard of it.
Court’s Observations
Judge Dagliya noted that the actions of the accused were not just an attack on an individual but a blow to the credibility of the justice system itself. The order stated:
“The accused are aware of the law, the place where the incident occurred, the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the actions of the accused, and the potential impact on society.”
Further added,
“This responsibility is even greater for advocates who are well-versed in the law.”
The accused had argued that they had no prior convictions and had been facing trial for the last 17 years. However, the court rejected leniency, observing that the sanctity of the court and the responsibility of lawyers demanded stricter accountability.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bench Hunting
