Mamood Farooqui. Tried his luck with what was probably a lefty loon and is now paying for it. Also, the guy tries to make his move while his wife is in the kitchen?
Posted on 01/19/2018 11:18:08 PM PST by nickcarraway
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the acquittal of 'Peepli Live' co-director Mahmood Farooqui in a rape case, citing an email sent by the victim, a US woman, saying, "I do love you."
"How many times you have come across a case where the (rape) victim says I love you," a bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the woman.
"They were good friends. The facts of the case show good friendship. How did she communicate initially 'yes'. How does the other person know that her response is false," the bench asked the counsel.
Grover, for her part, submitted this is a case involving complex relationship. She urged the court to look into the provisions of Section 375b (rape) of the IPC brought in through the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013, which clearly stated consent means unequivocal voluntary agreement by words or gesture or non-verbal communication.
"Yes they were friends and in a relationship but it was not a sexual relationship," she said. The counsel urged the court to go through rest of the same email sent by the victim to Farooqui, clearly stating that Farooqui became forceful on that day, she was afraid of something happening to her like the victim of 2012 Delhi gang-rape, so she consented but she still owned her sexuality.
"According to her, they knew each and had drinks together. But there was no confusion and neither any positive assertion of willingness on her part," Grover submitted.
The bench, however, made her read the email further, wherein the victim said, "She visited his house when his wife was in the kitchen, he kissed me and I kissed him back."
"This is a very hard case. We will say it is a well-decided case, extremely well-decided," the bench said, dismissing her plea.
Yes not always yes
The Delhi High Court had on September 25 last overturned the trial court's judgement sentencing Farooqui to seven-year jail term for raping the US research scholar. "It may not necessarily always mean yes in case of yes or no in case of no," the judge said.
The HC had cast its doubt over the March 28, 2015 incident, that allegedly took place in Farooqui's South Delhi residence, and concluded that it was not clear if there was no consent from the 30-year-old victim and if Farooqui was able to understand it as he was allegedly in an inebriated state and suffered from bipolar disorder. The victim had lodged the FIR two months after the incident.
“Yes” and “No” both mean no depending upon how she feels about it next week, next month or next year. And women are always to be believed no matter how many times they lied in various love letters, emails and texts to their attacker.
If I understand correctly, the rape victim showed interest in the rapist, who was married to another woman. This does not bode well for her.
However, from the article: the judge questioned whether the perp was “able to understand it [her non-consent to sex] as he was allegedly in an inebriated state and suffered from bipolar disorder.”
That’s a huge red flag. Now being bipolar or drunk are considered legitimate defenses to accusations of rape? Doesn’t fly.
That’s the kind of failed logic that allowed a European (iirc) judge to accept the excuse of a man who raped a little boy at a swimming pool because the man claimed he had a “sexual emergency.”
The only thing worse is the judges who punish women for adultery when they make a complaint of rape.
Mamood Farooqui. Tried his luck with what was probably a lefty loon and is now paying for it. Also, the guy tries to make his move while his wife is in the kitchen?
That sounds like a reasonable conclusion.
I think this comes down to reasonable doubt. In this case she expressed through writing enough interest - past positive responses with the kissing, stating I love you, and the length/depth of the relationship to put enough doubt in the court’s mind to not pronounce guilt.
She’d likely win a civil case where it’s only preponderance of the evidence.
The standard for criminal conviction is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. To all appearances, there was reasonable doubt in this case.
Oops. I thought this was in the U.S. Please ignore my “reasonable doubt” comments.
If I’d been fully awake the “upholds acquittal” headline would have been a clue that the events in the story did not occur in the United States, but I apparently have not yet had enough coffee this morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.