In its recent judgment Bombay High Court set a side lower court’s punishment of 7 years to a man charged with 10 counts of rape.
HT reports:
The victim had alleged that between April 2004 and October 2006, Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan (26) had called her to various places and raped her 10 times, each time allegedly promising to marry her after forcible intercourse, but ultimately refusing to keep his word, according to the victim
...
The high court, however, refused to believe the victims' version that she had not objected to the repeated sexual assaults due to the promise of marriage made by the accused. Justice A.H. Joshi held that: “On the face of the record, nothing except unqualified and unconditional consent for sexual intercourse would emerge.
…
The judge also refused to believe that “the victim had no craving for what was expected during every meeting and was repeatedly happening” considering the fact that she had not offered any resistance during any of the acts.
Satyajit Joshi, my colleague alerted me to this story. I read it twice. Later I read it once again. Then both of us smiled; smiled to learn judge’s surname.
HT reports:
The victim had alleged that between April 2004 and October 2006, Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan (26) had called her to various places and raped her 10 times, each time allegedly promising to marry her after forcible intercourse, but ultimately refusing to keep his word, according to the victim
...
The high court, however, refused to believe the victims' version that she had not objected to the repeated sexual assaults due to the promise of marriage made by the accused. Justice A.H. Joshi held that: “On the face of the record, nothing except unqualified and unconditional consent for sexual intercourse would emerge.
…
The judge also refused to believe that “the victim had no craving for what was expected during every meeting and was repeatedly happening” considering the fact that she had not offered any resistance during any of the acts.
Satyajit Joshi, my colleague alerted me to this story. I read it twice. Later I read it once again. Then both of us smiled; smiled to learn judge’s surname.
On the sidenote I would like to ask, why didn't Court charge lady of perjury since it has already upheld man's views.
(Emphasis imported)
No comments:
Post a Comment