Demolition of illegal Mumbai flats: Why hit the innocent?


by  Apr 26, 2013, Firstpost

 

There is this often narrated anecdote, surely apocryphal, where a mischievous student’s parent tells the teacher that the boy is sensitive. If he errs it would do if the next student is slapped and his son would get the message. That was, of course, before corporal punishment was outlawed.

To expect such hints to be taken by people who occupy illegal structures in Mumbai or in any city is absurd. It applies well to the move of the Mumbai’s civic body to demolish 140 apartments on 35 floors across seven apartment buildings in Worli. It was not a spontaneous action from the civic body, it was ordained by the Supreme Court.

Building collapse in Mumbra. PTI

Building collapse in Mumbra. PTI

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) has now made the headlines by the simple fact of speaking about how it has drawn a logistic and supervisory strategy to do so in three months, as The Times of India reported on Thursday. It mentioned, how, rightly, the residents were unnerved. One would be surprised if they were not.

The demolition plan is terrible news mostly since it is an entirely wrong way to go about the business of illegal constructions, which of course, are rife in the city. Simply because the Supreme Court ordered it for violations of civic laws also does not necessarily make it right. There are many more which have deviated from the rules.

The civic body, in the cloud of the dust raised by the collapse the Mumbra building which took 74 lives, has but to act on the apex court’s order which bars the residents from seeking regularisation of the illegalities. It naturally leaves them with no option but to take recourse to a review petition.

By making a virtue out of the order, talking about new techniques without disclosing the details as to how the flats would be brought down, and saying that about Rs 1.5 crore would be spent towards complying, MCGM simply cannot escape its responsibility in having allowed such nonchalant law-breaking.

What about the shamble in which the residents of other apartments would have to live in, during the demolition? It is assumed that they or the worth of their property does not matter at all. The collateral damage to them is hard to imagine.

Not bringing the unauthorised apartments down would be contempt of court, but allowing them to have come up in the first place itself requires a judicial enquiry which can and should hold the process and the participants in it guilty as well. We have hardly heard anything much about those who perpetrate such frauds, of being held accountable.

Had the Supreme Court only asked the MCGM to bring before it all the cases of violations and then their regularisation, say during the past one decade, it would have helped bare the unbelievable extent of the mischief played by the real estate interests and civic officials in cahoots. Those interests include politicians.

There are likely to be more illegal buildings or parts of buildings than there are those among them which should have attracted the demolition crews of the civic body. The very fact that they did not is itself a testimonial admission of the civic body’s culpability. Except, of course, we don’t know which are illegal and which not; even the buyers did not.

This does not at all mean that enforcement of law has to be only selective in the sense the builders who come up with the grand designs to cheat and then, with ever-eager willingness of the civic officials, often at the behest of politicians who urge everyone to wink at the deviations, can go scot free.

Mumbai’s civic body and its counterparts in other cities have avoided universally applying the building code—from floor space index to eligibility of a site to host the structure, including the structural quality, explaining the violations if—only if—exposed and act seemingly responsibly thereafter, up to a point before resuming their mischief. It is a lot cheaper to do a job honestly and efficiently than cope with consequences.

This common sense approach abundantly useful to ensure reliability of a civic body is missing in their administrative culture across cities. Because adhering to the proper ways would lead to huge losses by way of illegal incomes. It is as if the citizen is not at all a stakeholder. Those who stick to their statutory duties are often dismissed as cranks, as GR Khairnar was.

Had Khairnar only done his job without running at the mouth, and grabbing headlines, he perhaps would have been better off. But had he not, looking at the flip side, he would have been smothered by the corrupt in the system. The system that protects wrongdoing is much more competent than the other citizen-centric work as per law.

It cannot be anyone’s case that Mumbai or for that matter any city’s illegal structures, from lean-tos on sidewalks to slum colonies to elegant multi-storeyed apartments, should be allowed. Well-performing cities ought not to allow them to even emerge, leave alone mushroom. If they do, there are undermining their own stated purpose.

They are allowed to mushroom and then, amid outcries—often maybe because the right bribe was not paid—make the innocent buyer almost invariably the casualty. Even the slums that crop up hither and yon with near impunity from the civic demolition squads have been blessed by politicians and as the recent case of an entire corrupt police station lining up for bribes showed, everyone is on the make.

Then why leave the victim thrashing about after being targeted by the real estate industry which not only makes housing unaffordable but also runs a racket hand in glove with those who ought not to have allowed it in the first place. If this Worli pattern becomes the chosen way, large chunks of Mumbai residents would be on the streets sans a shelter even as the jails remain empty.

 

Rape threats on Rediff.com : Kavita Krishnan speaks out #Vaw #Online


by  , FirstPost Apr 25, 2013

 

Activist Kavita Krishnan is used to caustic abuse being flung at her. It’s part and parcel of organising and attending demonstrations and an occupational hazard of being Secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association. As one of the editors of Liberation, a monthly Marxist publication, she’s also used to getting unpleasant emails. Consequently, she knows how to fight back, which is what she did yesterday during a live web chat organised by Rediff.

However, does this exonerate Rediff from taking any responsibility for the abuse directed at Krishnan during a chat organised and moderated by the website? “My demands are simple,” said Krishnan when she spoke to Firstpost earlier today. “I don’t want more regulation or anything that curtails free expression. But I would like a formal apology from Rediff because they invited me and their moderators failed to restrain someone who repeatedly threatened me with rape.”

Krishnan was invited by Rediff to participate in a chat discussing violence against women. “They wanted me to speak as someone who has been part of anti-rape protests and I was happy to do this,” she said. Krishnan is among those who have been regularly called upon by various media outlets to speak about rape and its implications. “Onkar Singh from Rediff’s Delhi office came to set up the chat at my office in the afternoon,” said Krishnan. “Questions started coming in and as is the practice, I’d pick one and answer and so on. It was going fine at first.” A little later, someone with the handle “RAPIST” appeared. “They’d chosen to write the word in capitals, so it was very visible. You couldn’t miss it,” recalled Krishnan.

Screengrab of Kavita Krishnan's twitter feed where she has also posted about the Rediff incident.

Screengrab of Kavita Krishnan’s twitter feed where she has also posted about the Rediff incident.

RAPIST’s first message to Krishnan was to tell women to dress properly. “He wrote something like, ‘Tell women to not wear revealing clothes, then we will not rape them’ followed by gaali.” Krishnan replied to RAPIST, saying he was proving her point rather than making a counter-argument. “There’s no way that the person monitoring the chat in Mumbai could not have seen this exchange,” said Krishnan. “This person was writing in all caps. You couldn’t miss it. Also, I did respond. Whoever was monitoring must have seen me replying to that handle.”

After Krishnan’s reply, there was silence from RAPIST for some time. He returned after a bit with, “Kavita tell me where I should come and rape you using condom”. Again, the message was written in capital letters. “It popped up at least three or four times, all in CAPS,” said Krishnan. “I was very taken aback that this person, with a handle like that, could keep posting something like this.” Krishnan reacted sharply. “I wrote something like, ‘Give me your name and address, and I’ll show you’. I was disgusted.” The response didn’t stop RAPIST, who kept repeating his threats.

At this point, it was Rediff’s Onkar Singh who told Krishnan to log off. “He behaved with the utmost decency and had great presence of mind,” recalled Krishnan. “I was too taken aback to react properly, but he was the one who told me to get out of the chat. Before leaving, I wrote that this shouldn’t be the kind of offensive comments you should have to field and that I was leaving because of it.” That was the end of the chat and the beginning of a more tangled debate on intimidation, free speech and responsibility.

Immediately after the chat, Rediff promised Krishnan that an FIR would be lodged. “Ganesh Nadar of Rediff told me they had great connections with the Worli cyber crime lab, that they had a screenshot and they would lodge an FIR,” said Krishnan. She asked if the chat would be edited so that the abusive comments are removed. Nadar said yes. Krishnan told him that she wanted her last lines to remain because she wanted readers to know why she’d left the chat abruptly.

Nadar agreed. He also told her that it wasn’t possible to screen who left a comment because it was a live chat. Nadar changed the story later and told Krishnan that the person monitoring the chat had missed RAPIST because there were so many people sending questions.

Neither explanations seem particularly plausible to Krishnan. “I know that’s not true because I’ve done these chats before,” said Krishnan. “Screening can and is done. As for not noticing, it’s not possible to miss someone who calls themselves RAPIST, especially since I did respond to him.” Krishnan asked Nadar for a screenshot of the offending section. He said he’d send it to her along with the FIR number. He also gave her the editor’s email and suggested she write a letter detailing the incident. Krishnan did so. She also recounted her experience on Twitter and Facebook, and urged others to write to the email she’d been given about Rediff’s comment moderation policy.

This is the unedited text of Krishnan’s email to the editor of Rediff.

“Dear editor,
Rediff.com

Sir,
Mr. Ganesh Nadar fom Rediff had contacted me yesterday to participate in a live chat today, and I agreed. Mr. Onkar Singh from Delhi’s rediff office came to my office today to facilitate the chat, which was to take place from 2 pm to 3 pm. The chat had been advertised as an opportunity to chat with me as one of the activists involved in the recent anti-rape protests.

During the chat, someone with a handle ‘RAPIST’ repeatedly intervened in capital letters. In one ‘question’ he said, “Kavita tell women not to wear revealing clothes then we will not rape them.” The same man then posted another question several times: “Kavita tell me where I should come and rape you using condom.” Both questions were in block capitals and very visible. Mr Nadar initially said live chats cannot be ‘screened’ – which I know for a fat is not true since I have been in such chats with other media groups. Later Mr Nadar said that the man in the Rediff Mumbai office monitoring the chat failed to spot the ‘RAPIST’ because there were ‘so many questions.’ I find this difficult to believe since this was the only handle in capital letters and the questions were also in capitals.

Yet, no one from Rediff did anything to screen the guest – me – from such offensive questions, or to block someone with a handle of ‘RAPIST’ from the chat!

Mr. Ganesh Nadar has informed me that Rediff has taken a screenshot of the chat and is filing an FIR and sending the screenshot to Worli cyber crime labs to identify the ‘RAPIST.’ But I am yet to get a copy of the screenshot though I have asked for it; excuses are being made. I am also yet to receive the FIR number. Mr Nadar is very vague and contradictory about why the transcript of the chat is yet to be posted; whether the RAPIST’s questions will be screened there; whether I will receive a screenshot or only the transcript (which will only have the questions I responded to); and other queries that I have.

I demand a public apology from Rediff for its failure to ensure that a chat organised by them was a safe space for me, a woman. Condoning and allowing such intimidatory behaviour against women keeps women out of the online space – just as rape keeps women off the streets. I resent this intimidation, and in this instance, hold Rediff squarely responsible for failing to keep ‘RAPIST’ out of the chat.

Expecting a public apology from you.

Kavita Krishnan,

Secretary, AIPWA”

So far, the only response Krishnan has got from Rediff is an aggrieved email from Nadar asking why she’d put the editor’s email in the public domain. It’s a perplexing question to Krishnan. “The email I was given is not a personal email,” said Krishnan. “It’s not a violation of privacy. I don’t even know who the editor is. What I have and what I’ve circulated is a generic, professional email. It’s the kind of email to which people write letters to the editor, which is what I and a few people did.”

Krishnan has not received either the screenshot or the number of the FIR that they promised they’d lodge. The chat has not been uploaded. Some have urged Krishnan to file an FIR herself but Krishnan doesn’t think it’s her place to do so. “I think it’s for Rediff to do because they organised the chat and it was during something they organised that I received these personal threats,” she said. “It’s their responsibility. I’m more than happy and willing to appear and testify should they need me to, but I think it’s their responsibility to take measures that will give their guests a sense of security.”

On hindsight, Krishnan has just one regret: “I should have taken a screenshot of that transcript. Not because I want to make it public – I shouldn’t have to. Rediff told me it was a public chat, so it’s in any case public – but because I should have kept my own record of this man’s behaviour towards me. But I was just too taken aback and disgusted then. I just shut my computer.”

The incident has reiterated to Krishnan how concerted an effort there is to corner and threaten women in the virtual space. “It’s a reflection of the intimidation and lack of security that we talk about in the physical space,” she said. “We can’t let this happen. Women, much like Dalits, Muslims and other minorities, must be free to access and make use of the virtual space without fearing for their personal safety and without the threat of this kind of abusive and personal intimidation.”

Despite the ugly trolling she’s faced, Krishnan is unequivocally against any kind of increased Internet regulation that could be manipulated to curb free speech. “There’s many kinds of hate speech and it exists in the real and the virtual world, but that’s no reason to impose any kind of government regulation of the internet,” she said. “Whatever someone says, I believe they’re free to say it. The difference on the Internet is that anonymity offers security to the victimiser rather than the victim, which is the concern. It falls upon all of us, individually and collectively, to uphold the norms that will ensure security and encourage debate, rather than intimidation. That’s why all I’m asking for from Rediff is a public, formal apology. It’s just churlish to invite me to a chat, to do nothing when I’m exposed to this kind of intimidation and to not even enquire after my wellbeing afterwards.”

 

Rediff.com Publicly apologise for failure to ensure safe chat space for women #Vaw #Online


Dear editor,
Rediff.com

Sir,
Mr. Ganesh Nadar fom Rediff had contacted me yesterday to participate
in a live chat today, and I agreed. Mr. Onkar Singh from Delhi‘s rediff
office came to my office today to facilitate the chat, which was to take
place from 2 pm to 3 pm. The chat had been advertised as an opportunity
to chat with me as one of the activists involved in the recent
anti-rape protests.
During the chat, someone with a handle ‘RAPIST
repeatedly intervened in capital letters. In one ‘question’ he said,
“Kavita tell women not to wear revealing clothes then we will not rape
them.” The same man then posted another question several times: “Kavita
tell me where I should come and rape you using condom.” Both questions
were in block capitals and very visible. Mr Nadar initially said live
chats cannot be ‘screened’ – which I know for a fat is not true since I
have been in such chats with other media groups. Later Mr Nadar said
that the man in the Rediff Mumbai office monitoring the chat failed to
spot the ‘RAPIST’ because there were ‘so many questions.’ I find this
difficult to believe since this was the only handle in capital letters
and the questions were also in capitals.
Yet, no one from Rediff
did anything to screen the guest – me – from such offensive questions,
or to block someone with a handle of ‘RAPIST’ from the chat!
Mr.
Ganesh Nadar has informed me that Rediff has taken a screenshot of the
chat and is filing an FIR and sending the screenshot to Worli cyber
crime labs to identify the ‘RAPIST.’ But I am yet to get a copy of the
screenshot though I have asked for it; excuses are being made. I am also
yet to receive the FIR number. Mr Nadar is very vague and contradictory
about why the transcript of the chat is yet to be posted; whether the
RAPIST’s questions will be screened there; whether I will receive a
screenshot or only the transcript (which will only have the questions I
responded to); and other queries that I have.

I demand a public  apology from Rediff for its failure to ensure that a chat organised by
them was a safe space for me, a woman. Condoning and allowing such
intimidatory behaviour against women keeps women out of the online space
- just as rape keeps women off the streets. I resent this intimidation,
and in this instance, hold Rediff squarely responsible for failing to
keep ‘RAPIST’ out of the chat.
Expecting a public apology from you.
Kavita Krishnan,
Secretary, AIPWA

April 24, 2013 n

 

#Mumbai Court rejects Jerrit John’s bail application #Vaw #Acidattack


Rebecca Samervel, TNN | Mar 23, 2013, 03.40 AM IST

JERRIT11
MUMBAI: A Sewri sessions court on Friday rejected the bail plea of film professional Jerrit John, arrested on the charge of attempting to murder his former lover.

“The court read out the operative part of the order and said that the bail plea was rejected,” the victim’s lawyer, Faiz Merchant, said.

On November 7, John allegedly hurled a chemical on his 26-year-old former girlfriend, physiotherapist Aryanka Hosbetkar, at her residence in Worli.

John is also facing charges of wrongful confinement and theft. He was arrested from Nalasopara on November 10.

The police said John planned the attack after Hosbetkar refused to marry him despite his promise to divorce his wife, with who he has a five-year-old son.

Opposing John’s bail application, the police said in court that if released on bail, he was likely to harm the witnesses, including the victim, and jumping bail.

John had applied for bail in December as well, but withdrawn it later.

Merchant too had filed an intervention application opposing the bail plea. “Allowing the accused to go on bail at such a premature stage would set a bad precedent in society where acid attacks are becoming more common than otherwise,” Merchant had said.

Related articles

#Mumbai #acidattack: Why me? is the question that bothers Aryanka everyday #Vaw


Published: Thursday, Dec 20, 2012,
By Sunchika B Pandey | Place:  Mumbai, DNA

>Jerrit G John, 46, flung a chemical on his girlfriend Aryanka Hosbetka on November 7, 2012.“I still ask myself every day, why me?” says physiotherapist Aryanka Hosbetkar in her first candid interview after her boyfriend Jerrit G John, 46,flung a chemical on her on November 7. “I am yet to find out why someone would want to scar me for life. Because I found out his fault and decided to move on and live my life on my terms? Why is a woman, who has found out that her man is two-timing her, expected to forget and forgive?” asks Hosbetkar. “I trusted him, but he did not think twice before scarring me for life by ruining my face. What would I be without my face.”Hosbetkar’s biggest concern is her mother, who as a single parent after her father’s deathdid her best to bring her up. “The people, who lauded her as a single parent, are now pointing fingers at us,” says Hosbetkar, adding that she hopes to lessen her mother’s burden, especially financially, as she is completely dependent on her.“I have lost faith in humanity, especially men. I am just 25. I had just started earning and living my life. Now, my career has come to a standstill as my eyes are yet to heal. I will have to start from scratch, and that too only if my mother is confident again to let me step out of home,” laments Hosbetkar.

The Worli resident had met John, who runs a production house, 10 months ago when he had joined her cycling group. Soon, they started seeing each other. The father of a five-year-old son, John had told Hosbetkar that he was in an unhappy marriage and would soon seek a divorce. But four months ago, she had found out that he was cheating on her with another woman, who lives in Borivli. John had reportedly threatened Hosbetkar on several occasions before attacking her on November 7.

Hosbetkar laments that her misfortunes did not end on the day of the incident. Now, she has tovisit the police station, hospital and lawyers regularly for follow-ups. “But I have taken the right stand and any woman in such a situation should do the same,” she insists.

 

Borivli woman was in no affair with John G Jerrit : Kin


, TNN | Nov 11, 2012, 05.44AM IST

MUMBAI: Film professional Jerrit John , 46 , was not having an affair with the Borivli woman he tried to target after his early morning attack on Aryanka Hozbetkar at Worlion Wednesday , according to a relative of the woman . The relative said that John was merely a distant relative of the Borivli woman and was angry with her because he felt she had destroyed his relationship with Hozbetkar.Earlier , it was reported that John , a married man with a son , was in a relationship with Hozbetkar as well as the Borivli woman , who is herself married and with a child. It was reported that after Hozbetkar and the Borivli woman found that he was two-timing them , they confronted him.After throwing a chemical on Hozbetkar , John went to the house of the Borivli woman to target her . But Hozbetkar alerted the Borivli woman , who didn’t open the. The Borivli woman’s relative said , “He was ringing the bell and hiding from the door camera . She opened the window of the safety door , saw him and shut the window . He threatened her for spoiling his relationship with Aryanka . The woman reported the matter to the police to avoid further trouble.”

The Borivli woman’s relative contacted TOI on Saturday to say that she was in no relationship with John , but just a distant relative . The relative said Hozbetkar had begun to doubt if she should continue her relationship with John and got the contacts of people who knew him . She then began contacting those people and in the process contacted the Borivli woman . The woman sent Hozbetkar a message back in which she discouraged her from continuing the relationship . Recently , John called the Borivli woman to ask if she had said anything about him to Hozbetkar . She denied any such communication , the source claimed.

“After Jerrit snatched Aryanka’s phone (on Wednesday morning ), he must have gone through her SMS es and call details and seen the SMS of the Borivli woman . So after attacking Aryanka , he went to Borivli and threatened to malign the woman’s image in media and in court for spoiling his relationship with Aryanka ,” said the relative . The Borivli woman is reportedly upset as she is not close to Jerrit , who is a cousin of her mother’s sister-in-law . The relative said , “They met sometimeduring a family function , but there was no relationship between them as reported in the media .”

The source said the Borivli woman is shocked and depressed . “Everyone started saying she had a relationship with Jerrit , which is not true . She is married and happy and has a child.”

 

Jerrit John of No Nonsense production house throws Chemical/ Acid on a friend #VAW


( IF YOU SEE THIS MAN DIAL  100, HE IS ABSCONDING- REFER CASE DADAR POLICE STATION )

By- Kamayani Bali Mahabal

Who is Jerrit G  John?

Unfortunately, I know Jerrit G John, as I was part of India‘s first cycle flash mob which ran into controversy.   India’s first bicycle flash  mob was at bandra on  May 19, 2012.  I was introduced to the cycle gang through a  common friend,  in the First week of May when we all used to gather in the evening for  our dance rehearsals  in Juhu. There I made new friends, and among them were Aryanka and Jerrit.

Jerrit John’s, is the owner of  No Nonsense Production House  and he was in charge of the whole flash mob. Every evening dancing on the tunes of ‘ Jo jeeta whai sikander “, laughing and exchanging notes and having great time.

There after the flash mob can into controversy, and mys elf and jerrit  and others worked closely to sort out the issue as a person with  so called NGO called recycle initiative  , made revenue in the name of the cause . In the flash mob we had a lot of poor BMX riders who weren’t even fed water on the day of the event. Many more cyclists were  upset with the conduct of the event and feel absolutely cheated when a cause has turned out to be an personal event . Anyway, I gave them all legal advise I could, being an outsider, and a human rights activist, I would plunge into anything if there were human rights violations.    The Flash MOb was supposed to be an official  tie up with  Sa Re Ga Ma and they pulled it off their official you tube channel after the controversy.’

About himself he says

Back in the day when I was goofing off in front of a camera at Rhythm House, I didn’t think I’d be making a living out of it when I’m into my early 30s. It turned out that our antics were seen by the producers of a show called Philips [V] People. And soon, Channel [V] came calling. At first I’d thought I’d do it just temporarily, but soon I’d dropped my plans of becoming a combat pilot as I got used to the 15 hour workdays. 

Two years at Channel [V] with Udham Singh & Channel [V] awarsd and a stint with (ad film-maker) Shameen Desai’s assistant happened. TV Commercials for Live-In Jeans, Clorets, Carrier Air Conditioners and Citra followed. After which I decided I’d like to be my own boss, so I cut the ribbons to NO NONSENSE PRODUCTIONS. I then went onto work with MTV, UTV (Hungama) and Disney, I was called Creative Consultant, but I went the whole nine yards – directing, producing, editing – everywhere I worked.
Although Channel [V] is where I learnt the ropes, my passion always lay in films. Thanks to some luck and a bit of hard work, No Nonsense is one of the leading names in shooting behind-the-scenes Docu. action on movie sets. And being a part of the crew on Slumdog Millionaire, Delhi-6, My Name Is Khan, Don, Rock On, Wake Up Sid, Sarkar Raj, Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai…and the like was not only a great learning experience but also a great pleasure. 
My progress in the industry has been gradual, but I don’t believe in taking short cuts. I want to make human stories – something realistic – there has to be a take-home value,.’ve tried to reflect that in my short films, all of which are close to my heart. And it’s the greatest feeling in the world to have your work appreciated, and to be able to share it at places like the Berlin Film Festival or Cannes or having your film included in the Official Selection of Short Films for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If you ask me to pick a favorite, I’d honestly struggle to come up with a name. Be it Loo Tales or Rolling or S8 or Mumbai Local, being able to say that I like this one more than that has always been close to impossible for me.
The journey has been a bit up and down so far, but that’s what’s made it exciting and worthwhile. And the best part of it is: I’m nowhere near the end.

 

Today when I read TOI, I was aghast

WOMEN IN CITY UNDER ATTACK

‘Old friend’ hurls chemical on young physio’s face

Mateen Hafeez & Sumitra Deb Roy TNN

Mumbai: Aryanka Hozbetkar, a 26-year-old physiotherapist, had a hazardouschemicalflung ather face in her Worli residence on Wednesday morning. The assailant,whois absconding, is said to have been her good friend in the past. The incident comes in the wake of several other attacks in Mumbai on women at home and mirrorsthe growing trendof attempts to disfigure women’s faces either with acid or by slashing.
The attack took place at Hozbetkar’s home at Adarsh Colony at around 5am just after the physiotherapist had returned from one of her cycling expeditions. She was in the presence of her friends when Jerrit John, 45, carried out the cowardly attack.

Worli girl’s eye may be severely affected after chemical attack

Dadar Police Hunt For Absconding Vashi Suspect

Mateen Hafeez and Sumitra Deb Roy TNN

Mumbai: While Jerrit John, 45, has been booked for theft and wrongful confinement, the Dadar police are investigating a case in which the Vashi resident is suspected to have hurled a chemical at the face of 26-year-old physiotherapist Aryanka Hozbetkar at the woman’s Worli residence. Senior inspector of the Dadar police, Prakash Patil, confirmed that John, who was absconding at the time of going to press, has been booked by the cops for theft and wrongful confinement.
TOI has learned that the chemical attack has severely affected one of Hozbetkar’s eyes, although officials at P D Hinduja Hospital, Mahim, where she is being treated, refused to comment on the extent of the damage. A family friend said, “There have been injuries to the face and an eye may be badly affected. But she is out of danger now.” Neither the hospital nor the family would confirm if the attack had disfigured Hozbetkar’s face. Police said that one of her friends, Shammi Sharma, who was present when the attack took place, has also sustained injuries.
Hozbetkar met John, who is employed with a private firm at Bandra-Kurla Complex, soon after she joined a cycling group. Sources close to the investigation said that Hozbetkar and John had been going on cycling trips together. “They were very good friends. But after a point Hozbetkar did not want to continue with the friendship and she made that clear to him,” a source said. On Wednesday at around 4am, Hozbetkar had just returned from one of her trips with her friends when John called her. “He came over to her place and before anyone could realize anything was amiss, he hurled some liquid at her face. She started screaming and saying that her skin was burning,” said the source. The source said that John had stopped going for cycling trips lately.
Before either Hozbetkar’s parents, who were in the next room, or her friends could react, John fled the scene and bolted the Hozbetkars’ door from outside. He also took her cell phone, said a source. John was a frequent visitor to the Hozbetkar house and was known to her parents. The victim’s relatives, who stay next door, had to unlock the door, following which she was rushed to the hospital.
The Dadar police stopped short of saying acid had been flung at the girl. “It did look like some corrosive material but it is difficult to say whether it was acid,” said the source. The police have collected samples from the house, which will be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina.
Patil said that a team was sent to John’s Vashi residence, but it was locked. He confirmed that John had run away with the victim’s cell phone. “We are investigating the case,” he said.

Jerrit G  John SHORT films  to his credit shown @ Berlin Film Fest – 2003,2005,2006, Cannes – 2004,Stockholm – 2004
Indo British – 2004.

THIS CASE WILL BE SOLVED

There are six eye witnesses in the case and they know the perpetrator and the victim both.

Usually, we don’ t  usually get eye witnesses in acid throwing cases

Jerrit,  has been  asking friends to say that they did not hear anything or see anything,.

JERRIT, seriously, you think we will be QUIET.

You may have deleted you Facebook PROFILE, but you cant be on the run for long.

SHARE THIS WIDELY MAKE THIS MAN SURRENDER