English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

The “golden thread” and “consent”: the question of reasonable doubt and a rape case

Published

on

The “golden thread” and “consent”: the question of reasonable doubt and a rape case

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]~By Jayant Tripathi

In the famous case of Woolmington vs DPP, decided by the House of Lords in UK [reported in 1935 AC 462], it was held that Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…”.

This “golden thread” has been the backbone of criminal jurisprudence in India as well, and has been articulated by the Supreme Court over and over again, in a number of cases.  One such case was the attack on Akshardham temple, where, in 2014, the Supreme Court let off 6 accused persons, who had been sentenced to varying punishments ranging from prison terms to the death sentence, giving them benefit of doubt and holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond “reasonable doubt”.

The three cardinal principles of criminal law are (a) a consistent presumption that the accused is innocent, which therefore leads to the second principle (b) the prosecution has to prove its case beyond “reasonable doubt”, and (c) the onus upon the prosecution, to prove its case beyond ‘reasonable doubt”, never shifts, i.e., the accused is not required to prove his innocence.

What this effectively means is that if there is “doubt”, i.e., the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond “reasonable doubt”, then the “benefit of doubt” has to be given to the accused.

The passionate stand taken by a lot of persons, lawyers, and non-lawyers alike, in reaction to the recent decision of the Delhi High Court letting off Mehmood Farooqui, accused of raping a woman, appears to have forgotten the above cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence.

According to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1850, the crime of rape has to be committed, inter alia, against the will, or without the consent of the victim.

There has also been a lot of confusion in the media as to what the judgment actually says.  A number of media sources have made the mistake of confusing the arguments of the defense as being the findings of the judge, which have led to ill-informed outbursts in the media.

So what does the judgment actually say?

The defense team for Farooqui raised many arguments, nearly all of which were dismissed by the Judge as not being relevant.

The defense also advanced the following arguments to show that the sexual act was consensual-

(i) the prosecutrix not running away from the place of occurrence;

(ii) her remaining present in the house of the appellant for about a good 45 minutes post rape;

(iii) not divulging about the act to either Prosecution Witness 12 or brother of the appellant who came along with PW.12 or to the wife of the appellant;

(iv) no communication with the appellant till 30.03.2015;

(v) first communication to the appellant being in the nature of a minor abjuration;

(vi) the prosecutrix booking a MERU cab and cancelling the same;

(vii) going to the restaurant at Hauz Khas after the incident;

(viii) calling PW.12 after reaching Hauz Khas hotel;

(ix) taking an inordinately long time to register the FIR

Dealing with all these arguments for the defense, the Judge has negated all of them, and has held that these could be attributable to “rape trauma syndrome”.

The defense team also attempted to argue that there was a huge discrepancy in the sequence of events, which would mean that there was no more than one or two minutes for the act complained to have taken place.  Dismissing this argument, the Judge has held that the complainant is a sterling witness, and the discrepancies in timings are not significant.  As a matter of fact, the Judge goes into a small digression on studies of how memory works, and holds that “…the hunt for accuracy to the seconds and minutes is nothing but chasing illusion.”

The defense tried to argue that there was a past history of physical intimacy between the parties, and therefore there was consent in the past.  The Judge dismissed this argument by saying that “…such past conduct will definitely not amount to consent for what happened in the night of 28.03.2015, if at all it had happened, as for every sexual act, everytime, consent is a must.”

The argument that the accused suffered from bi-polar disorder was also not accepted by the Judge, who said that no evidence had been led on that aspect.

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Rape”.  Explanation 1 to Section 375 defines consent to mean “an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.”

However, as set out in section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, consent ceases to be consent, if it has been given for fear of injury and that the accused knows that the consent is being given out of such fear.

The core issue before the Judge was whether there was consent by the complainant for oral sex to be performed on her by the accused.

The complainant, writing about the incident, two days after the incident has said “I tried calling you, but was unable to get through, I want to talk with you about what happened the other night. I like you a lot. You know that I consider you a good friend and I respect you, but what happened the other night wasn’t right. I know you were in a very difficult space and you are having some issues right now, but Saturday you really went too far. You kept asking me if you could suck me and I knew you were drunk and sad and things were going awful. I knew that this wasn’t going to help things and I told you many times I didn’t want to. But you did become forceful. I went along, because I did not want things to escalate, but it was not what I wanted. I was just afraid that something bad would happen if I didn’t. This is new for me. I completely own my sexually (sic) and I consider you a good friend. I like you. I am attracted to you, but it really made me feel bad when this happened. I haven’t known what to say to you since then, I wasn’t sure if I would say anything. In the end I consented, but it was because of pressure and your own force physically on me. I did not want things to go bad. I have only decided to tell you how I feel for your own well being. I am afraid that if you don’t realize that this is unacceptable, you may try this on another woman when you are drunk and she will not be so understanding. I do love you and wish you well. I want the best for you, whatever that is, but I also need you to know doing what you did the other night is unacceptable. I hope this doesn’t affect our friendship, but am willing to deal with the repercussions if it does.”

In a slight deviation from the complaint as recorded in the FIR and the above email, the complainant during her testimony before the trial court stated that after the act was initiated, she remembered the case of Nirbhaya (where resistance had resulted in a gruesome death), and therefore she went along with what was happening.

Reading the judgment in its entirety, it appears that the initial advances of the accused were rebuffed.  When the accused held down the complainant to perform oral sex on her, the complainant (for fear of meeting the same fate as Nirbhaya) gave non-verbal consent, which was taken by the accused to be true consent.

It is in this context that the judgment says that while in most cases reluctance will have to be seen as denial of consent, but in cases where the persons involved are known to each other, and there has been a prior history of intimacy, it is “really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble “no”, was actually a denial of consent.”

 Should the accused have stopped at the first instance of a feeble no and little resistance, and not persisted any further?  When he persisted, and the complainant stopped resisting (for fear of injury, which unfortunately was not communicated to the accused), was there consent, at least in the mind of the accused? Just as consent can turn to non-consent during the act, is it possible for non-consent to turn to consent?  Does persistence form a part of courtship / mating rituals, especially when the parties are in a relationship, and if yes, how are limits and boundaries to be determined?  These are issues which will require greater thought and debate, and perhaps even a change in law relating to consent, and the manner in which it is required to be communicated.

The judgment does not state that the incident did not take place.  The judgment also does not state that there was no rape as was alleged.  The judgment also does not say that the version of the complainant is incorrect.  The judgment also does not find Farooqui innocent of the charges against him.

What the judgment does is apply the “golden thread” and finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”. The judge has observed that “What is the truth of the matter is known to only two persons namely the appellant and the prosecutrix who have advanced their own theories/versions…”.

The benefit of doubt has been given on account of the fact that the complainant, who initially resisted, later feigned consent for fear of injury.  However, the accused was never made aware that the consent was feigned and was being given for fear of injury.  As the judgment states, it could not be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was aware that his act was against the will of the complainant and was without her consent. (Jayant Tripathi is a lawyer practicing in the Delhi High Court)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Manipur: Congress hits back at BJP chief Nadda’s letter to Kharge

Ramesh emphasised that Nadda’s letter is replete with inaccuracies and reiterated that the people of Manipur long for normalcy, peace, and harmony.

Published

on

The Congress on Friday lashed out at BJP president JP Nadda’s accusations that the Opposition party was promoting a politically motivated narrative concerning the situation in Manipur.

The grand old party described Nadda’s letter to Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge as a 4D exercise, which means denial, distortion, distraction, and defamation.

Nadda, responding to Kharge’s call for President Droupadi Murmu’s intervention and his claims of the Centre’s total failure in managing the crisis, claimed that the consequences of Congress’s “abject failure” in handling local issues in Manipur during its governance are still being felt today.

Responding to Nadda, Congress General Secretary for Communications Jairam Ramesh stated, “Congress President Kharge ji wrote to the President of India on Manipur. Apparently, to counter that letter, the BJP President has now written to the Congress President.”

Ramesh emphasised that Nadda’s letter is replete with inaccuracies and reiterated that the people of Manipur long for normalcy, peace, and harmony.

He noted that they are posed with four critical questions: When will the Prime Minister visit the state? How much longer will the Chief Minister remain in office despite lacking majority support? When will a full-time Governor be appointed? And when will the Union Home Minister be held accountable for his failures in Manipur?

Nadda expressed astonishment at the Congress’s ongoing efforts to sensationalize the situation in Manipur, pointing out that Kharge appeared to overlook the fact that his party’s past government had legitimized the illegal migration of foreign militants to India, during which former Home Minister P Chidambaram had signed relevant treaties.

On Tuesday, Kharge had written to President Murmu regarding the worsening conditions in Manipur, requesting her immediate intervention to ensure that the citizens of the state can live peacefully and with dignity.

In his two-page letter, Kharge accused both the Union and Manipur state governments of “completely failing” to restore peace and normalcy over the past 18 months, resulting in a loss of public confidence in their leadership.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi is right, Gautam Adani should be arrested: RJD president Lalu Yadav

“Rahul Gandhi is right. Adani should be arrested,” said Prasad, who is an old ally of the Congress and a staunch opponent of the BJP, to which Adani is said to be close.

Published

on

RJD president Lalu Prasad Yadav on Friday spoke in support of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s demand for immediate arrest of Gautam Adani, after the Industrialist was charged in the US for alleged bribery and fraud.

Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, said on Thursday that Gautam Adani should be arrested immediately, and his protector Madhabi Puri Buch should be investigated

The former Congress chief claimed that the recent developments vindicate his long-standing allegations against Gautam Adani. He took a sharp dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and alleged that Modi is protecting Adani, and is also involved in corruption. 

Yadav, the former chief minister of Bihar, was responding to queries from journalists here about Gandhi’s statement on the previous day, in the backdrop of charges of bribery and fraud against the Adani group in the US.

“Rahul Gandhi is right. Adani should be arrested,” said Prasad, who is an old ally of the Congress and a staunch opponent of the BJP, to which Adani is said to be close.

The RJD supremo, who incidentally has been convicted in several fodder scam cases and is on bail, was also asked about prospects of the INDIA bloc, of which his party is a part, in Jharkhand, where the counting of votes for assembly polls is scheduled on Saturday.

Speaking to PTI, the ailing septuagenarian replied, “I would like to remain focused on my statement that Adani must be arrested. I am not worried much about a new government (in Jharkhand) where we are already in power.” Jharkhand witnessed a straight battle between the INDIA bloc and the BJP-led NDA, which included the JD(U) headed by Nitish Kumar, Prasad’s arch-rival and the current Chief Minister of Bihar.

Addressing a press conference on Thursday, Gandhi further said that Chief Ministers have been jailed for scams of Rs 10-15 crore, but Adani, who has committed a scam of Rs 2000 crore is walking free.

Continue Reading

India News

Cash for votes row: BJP leader Vinod Tawde sends legal notice to Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, asks them to apologise or face defamation

The BJP leader said the allegations against him were false, baseless and made with malafide intentions.

Published

on

Cash for votes row: BJP leader Vinod Tawde sends legal notice to Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, asks them to apologise or face defamation

BJP leader Vinod Tawde, accused of distributing cash to influence voters, has sent a legal notice to Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge, Supriya Shrinate and Rahul Gandhi over the controversy. The BJP leader has demanded their apologies or face a Rs 100-crore defamation case.

Vinod Tawde’s legal notice came after regional party Bahujan Vikas Aghadi (BVA) leader Hitendra Thakur on Tuesday accused him of distributing Rs 5 crore at a hotel in Virar in Palghar district, 60 km from Mumbai, to woo voters.

In the legal notice, the BJP leader said the allegations against him were false, baseless and made with malafide intentions. He claimed that he demanded an apology from the three Congress leaders for their remarks against him in the cash-for-votes row or he would be forced to initiate criminal proceedings against them.

Just a few hours before the Assembly Elections, a video went viral on Tuesday showing BVA workers storming into the hotel in Palghar during a meeting between Vinod Tawde and Rajan Naik, the BJP candidate from the Nalasopara seat. The BVA workers alleged that Tawde was caught red-handed with Rs 5 crore cash.

In the viral video, the BVA workers were seen taking out bundles of cash from a bag, while Tawde was sitting at a distance. The BVA workers also took pictures and videos of him on their phones. Amid these allegations, BVA leaders said that Rs 5 crore cash was distributed, an election official on Tuesday said Rs 9.93 lakh cash was recovered from the hotel rooms.

However, Vinod Tawde denied the allegation, saying he was only providing guidance to party workers on poll procedures and said he was not stupid enough to distribute money at his opponent’s hotel. Speaking to the media, he said that the Vivanta Hotel is owned by the Thakurs, and he is not stupid to go to their hotel and distribute money there.

The Police registered two FIRs against Tawde, BJP candidate Naik and others in connection with the controversy. Additionally, the Election Commission filed three FIRs against Tawde.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com