Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
»
5-min read

‘She Said I Love You, Kissed Him’: Argument That Led to Reprieve for Mahmood Farooqui in SC

The bench dismissed the plea to examine the Delhi High Court judgment while rejecting a US woman's appeal against exoneration of Peepli Live co-director Mahmood Farooqui in 2015 rape case.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:January 19, 2018, 5:47 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
‘She Said I Love You, Kissed Him’: Argument That Led to Reprieve for Mahmood Farooqui in SC
(Image: TV Grab/CNN-News18)
Loading...

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a judgment that has held that a "No" may not always mean a "No" in acts of passion.

A bench of Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao further declined to keep the point of law open as to whether the denial of 'consent' has to be in emphatic terms when parties know each other since a “feeble No may even mean a Yes”.

The bench dismissed the plea to examine the Delhi High Court judgment while rejecting a US woman's appeal against exoneration of Peepli Live co-director Mahmood Farooqui in 2015 rape case.

Here are the arguments that led the Court to discredit complainant’s version:

Judge: This isn't a case where strangers met and something happened. It is out of a relationship. They had met several times.

Vrinda Grover, lawyer for complainant: Yes. But there was no sexual relationship between them.

Judge: We are not using the term 'relationship' colloquially.

Vrinda: Yes, they were not in a relationship where she had consented for it.

Judge: But even according to her own evidence, she went to his house, they wanted to have drinks, and do several things together.

Vrinda: Having a drink doesn't mean that she consented for anything more.

Judge: We are not judging that. All that we are saying is they were not strangers.

Vrinda: Yes my lord and I have never denied that. In fact, I have said this multiple time in my evidence. And since they were not strangers, there is so much emphasis on her consent. Going to his house or having a drink together cannot tantamount to a consent.

Judge: It is a very hard case. But we think it has been extremely well decided by the High Court.

Vrinda: But the High Court has not even gone by the law. Under Section 375, in Explanation 2, the consent has been clearly defined. It has to be categorical, unequivocal and voluntary and needs to be expressed. It has to mean an unequivocal willingness. And she is on record saying she did not consent.

Judge: So, how did she communicate that she didn't have the consent?

Vrinda: She said no, several times…

Judge: Initially yes...but later there is a response wherein she says she faked (orgasm). People give fake smiles all the time. But how could the alleged accused know it was fake.

Judge: She said she was afraid but what she did was completely contrary to someone who would be afraid.

Vrinda: That is because she knew him and had met him several times. Such peculiarities would occur when you know your perpetrator.

Judge: Why don't you read your email, don't shy away. You have to read it when the Court asks you to.

Vrinda: I am not shying away my lord. It is my email and I have placed it on record before the court, not the accused.

Judge: Your email says in the end, she consented, you are not just good friends.

Vrinda: If you are strangers, complexity around 'consent' never has to arise. There is no question of consent when you are forced upon by a stranger and this is why it becomes extremely important to scrutinise the HC order, which tends to put the concept of ‘consent’ on its head and ignores the legal principle and that the onus cannot be on the victim…

Judge: But as the facts are borne out, you tell us why could the alleged accused not understand that she is consenting? Why don’t you read your email further?

Vrinda: Okay my lord. (She reads out the part of the email in which the US woman has mentioned the forced oral sex by the accused. It also mentions the complainant as saying “I do love you but…”)

Judge: Now this is after the incident. You are a seasoned lawyer yourself. In how many cases, you will come across where the prosecutrix says ‘I love you’ to the alleged accused after the incident?

Vrinda: I say it again that they were friends and friends do say ‘I love you’ to each other. Apart from this, there could be myriad similar circumstances. Such a thing can happen in a case of incest.

Judge: No, no... Don’t talk about all that. Come back to the facts of this case.

Vrinda: But my lord, (I) only wanted to know in what kinds of situations, a victim can still say ‘I love you’ to her perpetrators.

Judge: How many times she went to his house? When we say alone, we mean unforced, willingly.

Vrinda: May be two or three. But this was the only time she had gone there alone. But she was known to the accused, his wife and therefore, going to his house cannot mean anything.

Judge: We are not saying that if somebody’s house several times, you give up your right to alleged rape by that person but her own statement is that she went to his house many times.

Vrinda: Be that may my lord but when it is about sexual relationship, it cannot be anything short of positive affirmative willingness. It cannot be that a ‘feeble no’ would mean a ‘yes’, as the Delhi High Court has ruled.

Judge: The evidence here indicates a certain nature of relationship that you had with the alleged accused. Look at the records. It says you visited his house when his wife was present. And when his wife was in the kitchen, you both kissed each other.

Vrinda: Yes. And it is my statement. The accused has completely denied having any relationship with me but I have accepted this. But does this deprive me of the right to say that I did not have the consent when the accused tried to force himself upon me? Kiss or no kiss, for a sexual relationship, there must be an unequivocal consent given at that particular time.

Judge: Okay, leave all that. You tell us that in law, why it was impossible for the High Court to have taken this view?

Vrinda: First aspect is whether a court, citing two kisses, would presume a ‘consent’ by a woman at all times and for all kinds of sexual act? Prior intimacy will not denude her of the right to say ‘no’ at any time. Second, the High Court has indulged in gender stereotyping but has completely failed to appreciate evidence in terms of settled legal proposition and the definition of ‘consent’ under the amended law.

Judge: No… We won’t interfere with the High Court judgment. It is a well-decided judgment.

Vrinda: Please issue a notice at least. Here is a rape victim challenging an acquittal when the man was convicted by the trial court.

Judge: No, we won’t.

Vrinda: So my lord, dismiss this case but at least keep the question of law open as far as the High Court has interpreted ‘consent’ since this will set a very wrong precedent. This tends to put the onus on the victims to prove how she did not consent and how she assured the accused knew about her denial.

Judge: No, we won’t interfere at all.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro and gain access to curated markets data, trading recommendations, equity analysis, investment ideas, insights from market gurus and much more. Get Moneycontrol PRO for 1 year at price of 3 months. Use code FREEDOM.

| Edited by: Tarun Bhardwaj
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results