Hindus Get United

German prof apologizes for comments about rape in India to rejected candidate

New Delhi, India (CNN)Do not generalize India as a country of rapists.

That was the firm message from the German ambassador in New Delhi after a professor back home was accused of turning down a male Indian student's application for an internship due to the South Asian nation's "rape problem."

Professor Annette Beck-Sickinger never did such a thing, according to her and the University of Leipzig. The university points out four of her 30 students and two of her laboratory interns come from India; while it wasn't clear how many of them were men, the university said 29 of its 44 Indian students total are male.

Still, Beck-Sickinger has admitted making a mistake by engaging the rejected intern candidate with talk about rape in Indian society and how the issue spurred "many (other) female professors in Germany (have) decided to no longer accept male Indian students for these reasons."

"It was never my intention to make a defamatory comment about Indian society," she said, according to a statement posted on the website of the University of Leipzig. "I do not have anything against Indian students -- on the contrary. I sincerely apologize to anyone whose feelings I may have hurt."

Accused of Uber Rape Cannot Recall or Re-Examine Witnesses, Says Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today stayed a Delhi High Court order allowing the rape-accused Uber taxi driver to recall and re-examine 13 witnesses in the trial. The witnesses in question include the victim, a 25-year-old woman executive, who had been raped in a taxi in December 2014.

The top court also stayed the trial court proceedings, and restrained the media from reporting the statements of witnesses which have been recorded after the High Court's order.

"Issue notice to the respondents. The proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. The High Court order, dated March 4, shall also remain stayed," a bench headed by Justice J S Kehar said.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the alleged rape victim, said that the accused has wrongly been allowed to recall and re-examine the witnesses, and that this would create further agony for the victim and as a consequence, will delay the trial.

At the outset, the bench wanted to know whether the recalling of witnesses can be allowed at the instance of an accused or not.

It also said that to ensure fair trial, the accused may be allowed to re-examine the witnesses.

"Courts apply different yardsticks while granting and cancelling the bail. Likewise, if a court below has granted liberty to an accused to recall witnesses, then can this court deny it?" the bench said.

Mr Gonsalves, however, said that the trial court had passed a "well-reasoned order" and while reversing that order the Delhi High Court didn't give any specific reason for it.

The top court had yesterday agreed to hear plea of the woman, who was allegedly raped by Shiv Kumar Yadav, driver of an Uber cab, after she said that recalling of witnesses amounted to retrial in the case and sought an urgent hearing on the matter.

On March 4, the Delhi High Court had allowed recall of 13 prosecution witnesses, including the victim in the case, on the plea of Yadav and said their cross examination will be carried out on a day-to-day basis.

The High Court had also made clear "not to repeat any question which has already been put to the witnesses in their cross examination by the earlier counsel".

It had said that in case any witness is not available for the purpose of further cross examination, his/her testimony shall be read in evidence as it is.

As per the charge sheet filed by Delhi Police, the incident took place on the night of December 5 last year, when the victim, who was working for a finance company in Gurgaon, was headed back home.

She had taken the taxi from Vasant Vihar to go to her house in Inderlok and the accused after taking another route, raped her, police said.

Earlier, the trial court had rejected Yadav's plea for recalling witnesses while saying there was no change in circumstances except for a change of counsel, which was no ground to allow the application.

The trial in the case had commenced on January 15 and the prosecution had concluded recording its evidence in 17 days by examining 28 witnesses. The accused had not examined any witness in his defence.

The court on January 13 had framed charges against Yadav under various sections of the IPC for alleged offences of endangering a woman's life while raping her, kidnapping with intent to compel her for marriage, criminally intimidating and causing hurt.

How India's ban on BBC documentary film backfired....

Why did the Indian government ban the BBC rape documentary?

That's a question India's leaders must be asking themselves a week on from the ban.

If the idea was to stop people talking about the film, it has backfired in a big way.

India's Daughter has been front page news here in India every day since the ban was imposed late on Tuesday last week.

It has been trending on social media and has been the subject of characteristically vigorous debate on India's array of current affairs chat shows, with pundits jabbing angry fingers at each other into the night.

So why did the government do it?

There is certainly a political component to the ban. Permission for the interview was granted under the previous Congress-led government. The ruling BJP will have wanted to distance itself from that decision.

Misguided

It also wanted to be seen to be acting swiftly as controversy around the film blew up.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh said last Wednesday that the entire nation was "ashamed" by Mukesh Singh's words.

And the decision to ban the film was widely supported initially.

In the first couple of days after the ban even some leading Indian feminists supported it, arguing that the rapist should not be given a platform to express his repellent views.

Since then support has weakened and the consensus now, certainly in India's newspapers, seems to be that the ban is misguided.

That's because many of the arguments put forward to justify the ban have been called into question.

Leslee Udwin says there was no deception or breach of agreement on her part

The initial grounds for the ban were that broadcast of the film - or more precisely the interview with one of the men convicted of the savage rape and murder of a young Indian woman on a Delhi bus - could threaten public order.

The comments the rapist makes are certainly incendiary. Mukesh Singh appears to show no remorse for his crime and seems to be suggesting that, by fighting back, his victim was responsible for her own murder.

Some commentators have suggested that there is a link between elevated tensions around the issue of rape and the lynching of a rape suspect in the state of Nagaland in the north east of India.

It is a controversial claim. Vigilante justice is not uncommon in India, particularly over emotive crimes like rape.

And Nagaland notwithstanding, there hasn't been any significant disorder, despite the huge controversy around the film. Certainly nothing like the huge protest movement that grew up in the days after the original attack back in December 2012.

'Perverted views'

Another big area of debate has been whether the filmmakers got proper permission to film in Tihar, the prison where Singh is being held.

The director, Leslee Udwin, released her correspondence with the prison authorities to the media over the weekend. She says it supports her claim that there was no deception or breach of agreement on her part.

Then there was the claim that broadcasting the interview could prejudice future legal action, in particular the rapist's appeal against his death sentence in the Supreme Court.

That's been roundly rejected by the Editors Guild of India. It said that it was "an insult" to the highest court in India to suggest that airing the convict's "perverted views" would interfere with the course of justice.

Some activists say the rapists should have fast-track executions

So the Indian government is now in the uncomfortable position of having to defend an increasingly unpopular ban.

A senior government minister, M Venkaiah Naidu, described the documentary as "a conspiracy to defame India".

On that basis the ban was designed to protect the good name of India in the world.

But as party chiefs survey the headlines around the globe they would be hard pressed not to conclude that banning India's Daughter has been far more damaging to India's reputation abroad than an open discussion of the issues raised by the film would ever have been.

Can failed affair lead to rape charges? Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the question which had rankled the Delhi high court last year — can a failed consensual relationship between adults lead to filing of rape charges against the man?

In a judgment last year, the HC had flagged the issue and said rape cases were being used as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a man to marry.

The Supreme Court did not pass any order. But it expressed anxiety over the recent spurt in cases where the women in failed relationships had filed rape charges against the men accusing them of inducing them into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.

The case before the apex court concerned a failed relationship between a top IDFC banker and a former cabin crew member with an international airline. The man said the highly educated and net savvy woman knew all along that he was married with two children and it was impossible to hide his marital status. He said he could not have induced sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.

The woman in her complaint accused him of sexually abusing her on the promise of marriage and threatening to circulate an indecent video of her prepared by him.

A vacation bench of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice SK Singh asked: "Why did you take the indecent photograph? You say it was a selfie. Is it possible to take selfie of a whole body?

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused, said: "People get carried away in such relationships. They had a peculiar relationship. The bench asked, "Peculiar? It can be called a cupid relationship not a stupid relationship."

When Luthra said that "breach of promise to marry" was not an ingredient for rape charges, the bench asked: "Where is it held (by a court) that if you had a relationship for two years (with a woman), it becomes rape when it failed?"

Luthra conceded that there was a judgment to that effect by the Supreme Court. But, the bench said it must have been a one-off case and issued notice to Delhi Police, which is investigating the case for more than a year during which the accused banker was on interim bail.

The police had filed eight reports detailing the status of investigation into the case and had even changed the investigating officer on the complaint of the woman that the accused was being favored.

Before agreeing to examine the legal question involved in the case, the bench asked the accused banker to return any money that was allegedly due from him to her. Luthra said the accused had joined investigation 21 times and handed over all articles — cameras, laptops and phone SIM cards — as demanded by police.

No purpose would be served by arresting the man who had cooperated with the investigation and had been on interim bail for nearly 10 months during which the High Court was monitoring the investigation, he said assailing the HC decision to reject the bail plea of the accused.

The HC had questioned the basis for filing of rape charges in a failed relationship three times last year.

It had said: "Many of the cases are being reported by those women who have consensual physical relationship with a man but when the relationship breaks due to one reason or the other, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to get married to her."

It had asked the trial court judges to "cautiously examine the intentions of the girl to find out whether the rape complaint is genuine or has mala fide motives."

Consensual sex with intention to marry is not rape: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said that if a man has consensual sex with a woman with the intention to marry her, then it cannot be termed as rape, even though the marriage does not take place.

The top court's said this while hearing a case in which an accused was charged with rape after he failed to marry the girl with whom he had consensual sex on the promise of marrying her.

"Coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise," said the Supreme Court.

Differentiating consensual sex and rape, the Supreme Court said, "Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female.

"Rape reduces a woman to an animal, as it shakes the very core of her life. By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim, and therefore a rape victim is placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim.

"Being the most hated crime, rape tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme hon-our of a woman, and offends both her esteem and dignity. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving upon her indelible marks."

A lower court in Haryana had convicted the accused to undergo seven years imprisonment, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Supreme Court acquitted the person who had served three years out of the seven year sentence and ordered his release.

The Supreme Court said the girl was at that time 19 years old and had adequate intelligence and maturity to understand the significance and morality associated with the act she was consenting to. "She was conscious of the fact that her marriage may not take place owing to various considerations, including the caste factor. Hence it could not be said that she had not given her consent for having sex with the accused," the court said.

Delhi High Court judgement on rape and murder of old sparks off debate

Can forceful sex with a 65-year-old woman, who is beyond the age of menopause, punishable under law? judges seem to think otherwise. A judgment made on Friday by the Delhi High court in the case of rape and murder of an old woman in December, 2010 has sparked a debate on whether sexual intercourse with a post-menopausal woman can be treated as rape.

The judgement, made by a bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta has let off the accused, 49-year-old Achey Lal, waiving off the punishment meted out to the accused on the grounds that even if the intercourse “has been forceful, it was not forcible”.

“As regards the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC the deceased was aged around 65-70 years, thus beyond the age of menopause. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the sexual intercourse was forceful it was not forcible and contrary to the wishes and consent of the deceased,” read the judgement.

In December 2010, the victim was found dead inside her house in Majnu ka Tila along with an inebriated Achey Lal by a girl at whose house the victim worked. Achey Lal was arrested and eventually sentenced to 10 years of rigourous imprisonment. The post-mortem of the victim revealed that she has sustained injuries on her vagina, and traces of alcohol were found on her, too.

Lawyer-activist Vrinda Grover questioned the use of the word ‘menopause’. “On what grounds did the court has arrive on the judgement that the case was not one of rape? And where does menopause factor in here? Menopause is a medical condition, and the mention of the word is extraneous and erroneous. The injuries on the victim’s vagina proves that there was forced penetration, and the inference will lead to the criminal case of rape. Also, the judgement says that there are no other injuries, which is clearly a step back to the pre-Mathura era, where one would look for injurious to prove rape. The Mathura rape case led to two amendments; one, there should not be any requirement about explaining injuries for rape. And secondly, consent should be univocal. This case, to my mind, without the privilege of any evidence to be able to construct the case and thus rely on the judgement, is erroneous and not according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court,” said Grover.

Jugmati Sangwan of the All India Democratic Women’s Association said that the age of the woman should have, in fact, led to a bigger punishment. “Age does not matter in rape; 80-year-olds get raped, too. If the culprit is revengeful and bent on causing maximum harm, the age is a deterrent than. Should the age alone not be considered for any ground? This should lead to more punishment,” said Sangwan.

Lawyer Collin Gonsalves, however, said that the court could have been right, but the mention of the word ‘menopause’ is unfortunate. “It is a very cryptic judgement, and the reference to the word ‘menopause’ is unfortunate, unnecessary and irrelevant. The injuries on the vagina, however, indicates rape. Despite that, the court could be correct as injuries alone cannot lead a criminal court to conclude that it can be rape. There must be more evidence, because this could also have been a case of rough intercourse; forceful yet consensual sex,” said Gonsalves.