-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
No always may not mean No!
- Thread starter Janaki Jambunathan
- Start date
- Status
Very bad verdict.
The judge could have said lack of substantive evidence...previous close relationship..bipolarity of accused etc..thats fine in any court case BUT do not say that NO means YES for a woman.
A NO is A NO.
Next time a woman should say in court..I didnt say the English word NO..I said Nahin/Vendam..so Nahin means Nahin..Vendam means Vendam.
For this kind of idiotic judges one should counter them on technical grounds.
The judge could have said lack of substantive evidence...previous close relationship..bipolarity of accused etc..thats fine in any court case BUT do not say that NO means YES for a woman.
A NO is A NO.
Next time a woman should say in court..I didnt say the English word NO..I said Nahin/Vendam..so Nahin means Nahin..Vendam means Vendam.
For this kind of idiotic judges one should counter them on technical grounds.
prasad1
Active member
Janaki Jambunathan
Active member
Idea! Idea - women should say yes - to get the rapist convicted -same logic - Yes may not always mean Yes! Benefit of doubt!
Raji Ram
Active member
:lol: Good one!!
Janaki Jambunathan
Active member
Farooqui Verdict Redefines 'Consent' in Rape Cases, Puts Victims in Dock
The reasoning cited in the Delhi High Court verdict on Mahmood Farooqui defies judicial propriety and precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and various high courts in a body of previous judgments.
In Rao Harnarain Singh Vs. State, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that "there is a difference between consent and submission and every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow and a mere act of submission does not involve consent".
This judgment, which has been ratified by the top court in latter pronouncements, made it clear that consent is an act of reason accompanied by deliberation, a mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, non-resistance and passive giving in cannot be deemed to be Consent.
http://www.news18.com/news/india/fa...-rape-cases-puts-victims-in-dock-1528185.html
The reasoning cited in the Delhi High Court verdict on Mahmood Farooqui defies judicial propriety and precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and various high courts in a body of previous judgments.
In Rao Harnarain Singh Vs. State, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that "there is a difference between consent and submission and every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow and a mere act of submission does not involve consent".
This judgment, which has been ratified by the top court in latter pronouncements, made it clear that consent is an act of reason accompanied by deliberation, a mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, non-resistance and passive giving in cannot be deemed to be Consent.
http://www.news18.com/news/india/fa...-rape-cases-puts-victims-in-dock-1528185.html
Janaki Jambunathan
Active member
Very bad verdict.
(#3 Renuka)
Former Additional Solicitor General, Indira Jaising, termed the judgment a “sophisticated but deeply flawed judgment on whether or not rape took place.”
“The judgment creates a new defence in law for the rapist which does not exist in law. There is a double presumption — absence of intention to rape [by the accused] and non-communication by the woman despite a clear ‘no’ from her. ,” Ms. Jaising said.
She said the judge “has invented a defence for the accused, which the latter did not make or have in law. The case of the accused [Farooqui] was bare denial [of rape]. But the judge introduces his own belief that the woman did, in fact, consent. The burden of claiming such a defence, based on actual proof and evidence, was on the accused. Therefore, the judgment converted what was decidedly a defence for the accused into the presumed consent of the victim.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...judgment-in-farooqui-case/article19758420.ece
(#3 Renuka)
Former Additional Solicitor General, Indira Jaising, termed the judgment a “sophisticated but deeply flawed judgment on whether or not rape took place.”
“The judgment creates a new defence in law for the rapist which does not exist in law. There is a double presumption — absence of intention to rape [by the accused] and non-communication by the woman despite a clear ‘no’ from her. ,” Ms. Jaising said.
She said the judge “has invented a defence for the accused, which the latter did not make or have in law. The case of the accused [Farooqui] was bare denial [of rape]. But the judge introduces his own belief that the woman did, in fact, consent. The burden of claiming such a defence, based on actual proof and evidence, was on the accused. Therefore, the judgment converted what was decidedly a defence for the accused into the presumed consent of the victim.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...judgment-in-farooqui-case/article19758420.ece
- Status
Share this page
Similar threads
- Locked
