Another instance of law getting misused at the hands of unscrupulous woman!!
Will a woman who is raped, go on to watch a movie till the end, and after that accompany the rapist to restaurant??
Why not?? Afterall, LAW is at the service of Indian woman for any of their whims and fancies!!
Man acqu itted of raping woman between theatre seats
Court says ‘quite impossible to ravish a woman in a space of six inches’, besides purported victim’s testimony was full of loopholes
Anand Holla
Posted On Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 02:30:08 AM
A space of six inches between two rows of cinema hall seats is not sufficient to pin somebody to the floor and rape the person, the Sessions Court noted on Monday while acquitting 22-year-old Chandrakant Uttekar of raping an 18-year-old girl in a cinema hall while a movie was being screened. According to Wagh’s statement, they sat in the rear seats of the theatre, while a few other patrons occupied the front rows of the hall. Wagh testified that during the movie, Uttekar pushed her down between two rows of the seats and raped her in that space. In his defence, Uttekar argued that it was impossible to have sex in such small confines and that if an act of forced sexual intercourse had taken place, the victim would have sustained bruises and injuries. Though Wagh told the court that she had suffered injuries to her waist and left arm, those injuries – along with signs indicative of rape – were not reflected in the medical report. Also, the theatre’s booking clerk Thomas D’Souza testified that the distance between the two rows (Y and Z) was around 6 inches only. “It is quite impossible to lie on the back, between the two rows. Therefore, the victim’s contention that Uttekar ravished her within that space does not inspire confidence,” Sessions Judge V S Murkute remarked. The court also took note of Wagh’s conduct after the alleged rape, and observed that she not only watched the movie till the end, but also accompanied Uttekar to a restaurant, and thereafter to a public garden where he proposed marriage to her. On Wagh’s claim that she screamed for help, the court stated that it was ‘quite impossible’ that no one in the theatre heard her cries. “Also, it is not her contention that Uttekar had gagged her mouth, and therefore she was free to shout, and raise hue and cry to attract others’ attention; but she did not do so,” the judge noted. The court observed that Wagh’s father learnt of the incident the next morning when Wagh narrated it, but the complaint was registered only on the third day after the incident. Evidence before the court also showed that Uttekar and Wagh had an affair, and that their marriage was planned, but could not take place due to family opposition. Wagh even testified that she was unwilling to lodge a complaint against Uttekar, but did so after her parents’ coerced her to. “She has further admitted that she has deposed in court as per her mother and sister’s insistence. Her testimony does not inspire confidence,” the judge remarked, acquitting Uttekar. |
No comments:
Post a Comment