Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Bombay High Court Pulls Up An Additional Sessions Judge For Using Slang/Foul Words 'Disrespectful To Women' In Rape Case

Sparsh Upadhyay
11 March 2021 12:45 PM GMT
Bombay High Court Pulls Up An Additional Sessions Judge For Using Slang/Foul Words Disrespectful To Women In Rape Case
x
"The Trial Court has used the words 'F*****' and "F******". These words are used in slang language, are treated to be foul words and are utterly disrespectful to women": Bombay High Court

The Bombay High (Aurangabad Bench) recently pulled up an Additional Sessions Judge and expressed its displeasure as the Judge used slang language and foul words 'utterly disrespectful to women' while recording rape survivor's testimony and later in the Judgment authored by him. The Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice B. U. Debadwar sternly remarked, "The Trial Court has...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High (Aurangabad Bench) recently pulled up an Additional Sessions Judge and expressed its displeasure as the Judge used slang language and foul words 'utterly disrespectful to women' while recording rape survivor's testimony and later in the Judgment authored by him.

The Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice B. U. Debadwar sternly remarked,

"The Trial Court has used the words 'F*****' and "F******". These words are used in slang language, are treated to be foul words and are utterly disrespectful to women."

The Court also noted that though the Marathi version of the testimony of the prosecutrix indicated certain Marathi words used by her, yet the Trial Court repeatedly used objectionable words, while recording the English version of her testimony.

The case before the Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 14th August 2012, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2010.

The respondent accused was acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint of the prosecutrix was that the accused, who is her cousin father-in-law had committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court's observations

At the very outset, the Court recorded its 'strong displeasure about the choice of a particular word', which was repeatedly used by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon (Coram: S. V. Ranpise) while recording the testimony of the prosecutrix, and also in the body of the judgment.

Further, the Court, after taking into account the admissible evidence, concluded that the version of the prosecutrix of having suffered injuries due to the breaking of the bangles is found to be false in view of there being no medical evidence and no bangle pieces found at the spot of the crime.

The Court also observed that no injury or bump was found on her head, no semen stains were found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix and that no injuries were found on her thighs or legs.

The Court also noted that her story of having slapped the accused was not supported by medical evidence as there was no slap imprint on his face or abrasions.

The Court also opined that,

"The Prosecutor was unable to convince it that though the prosecutrix does not have a single abrasion on her body and her entire narration of several injuries as noted above, have been proved to be false, we could still arrive at a conclusion that the accused and the accused alone, had committed the offence."

Further, taking into account Apex Court's recent ruling on 12th February 2021 in the case of State of Odisha vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and another [Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1156/2021] that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for substantive evidence.

"Suspicion can never take place of proof and the court cannot base it's order of conviction on the basis of suspicion", remarked the Court.

In view of the above, the appeal failed and was, therefore, dismissed.

Case title - The State of Maharashtra v. Mahadu Dagdu Shinde [Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2014]

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment


Next Story
Share it