Mahmood Farooqui acquittal order ‘dishonest on fact’, will appeal in Supreme Court: Vrinda Grover

The HC, while acquitting Mahmood Farooqui, said that “... it remains in doubt as to whether such an incident” as narrated by the woman took place. It further said that “if at all it had taken place”and if “it was without consent”, Farooqui “could discern/understand the same”.

Written by Kaunain Sheriff M | New Delhi | Updated: September 27, 2017 10:02 am
Mahmood Farooqui, Farooqui rape case, Mahmood Farooqui acquitted, Mahmood Farooqui Acquittal, Mahmood Farooqui rape case, peepli Live director, Vrinda grover, Mahmood Farooqui news, Indian express news Delhi HC acquitted Mahmood Farooqui of charges of rape on Monday. (Source: File photo)

A day after the Delhi High Court acquitted Peepli Live director Mahmood Farooqui of charges of rape, the counsel of the US woman scholar said the court order is “dishonest on fact and in law”.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, counsel for the woman who accused Farooqui, said, “We have read the judgment. It is dishonest on fact and in law. We will move the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal order.”

The HC, while acquitting Farooqui, said that “… it remains in doubt as to whether such an incident” as narrated by the woman took place. It further said that “if at all it had taken place”and if “it was without consent”, Farooqui “could discern/understand the same”.

Some key points from Monday’s court order:

# The woman had deposed before the trial court that at the time of the alleged incident, she “remembered the case of Nirbhaya, whose offender had declared that if she had not protested, she would have lived”. According to her, this was why she kept “quiet and faked an orgasm in order to avoid any physical harm to her”.

In an apparent reference to this, the High Court said: “There is no communication regarding this fear in the mind of the prosecutrix (the woman) to the appellant (Farooqui). The prosecutrix makes a mental move of feigning orgasm so as to end the ordeal. What the appellant has been communicated is, even though wrongly and mistakenly, that the prosecutrix is okay with it and has participated in the act.”

# The court said that “at what point of time and for which particular move” Farooqui “did not have the consent of the prosecutrix is not known”. “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 High Court said.

# The court said, “Normally, body language or a non-verbal communication or any previous activity or passivity and in some cases incapacitation because of alcohol consumption may not be taken as consent… However, in the present case, as has been stated, the appellant has not been communicated or at least it is not known whether he has been communicated that there was no consent of the prosecutrix.”

# The court said that “the unwillingness of the prosecutrix was only in her own mind and heart but she communicated something different to the appellant”. “It is not unknown that during sexual acts, one of the partners may be a little less willing or, it can be said unwilling, but when there is an assumed consent, it matters not if one of the partners to the act is a bit hesitant. Such feeble hesitation can never be understood as a positive negation of any advances by the other partner,” the court said.

The court has said that “the past conduct will definitely” not amount to consent for what happened during the incident — and that “for every sexual act, every time consent is a must.” It added, “Different persons have different inclinations for sexual activity and immediately preceding the act, there are different ways of people responding to the advances, entreaties or requests.”

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. Piyush Agarwal
    Sep 29, 2017 at 9:48 pm
    I applaud the judiciary. Read the full judgement. See the females behaviour... clearly a consensual act. In 62 countries around the world the rape law is worded in a gender neutral manner. In 27 countires auch law is completely gender neutral. In the garb of abla naari... metro ual women cannot be allowed to misuse the laws for money and property. The double faced feminists of India talk two different things while debating women frendly laws. A mojority of such women are basically anti-male and mostly single or separated or divorced in their personal lives. They cannot be allowed to run the ethos of our culture. Yeses and Nos are just feeble utterances of the act... once already started. IF I WERE THE JUDGE I WOULD HAVE TRIED THE WOMAN TOO FOR RAPE... AND ASKED HER TO PROVE THAT SHE DIDNT RAPE THE MAN INSTEAD. Kudos to the judiciary fo
    1. N
      Sep 27, 2017 at 1:01 pm
      Can somebody take away these Le ia Maoist from India. People will live peacefully and prosperously. These so called liberals goons are unnecessary wasting the time of our courts.
      1. D
        Sep 27, 2017 at 10:23 am
        It is very difficult to prove rape case, even you submit your clothes and hospital checkup immediately. The judiciary process is bad in India and gender inequality is worse. It also takes months to convict people, mostly men. There could be dishonest filed cases to trap men, but they should be resolved at lowest/trial court first. And Bollywood/film industry is worse culture for women. Film industry women have ZERO backbone, once in a while Kangana talks about such issues.
        1. R
          Sep 27, 2017 at 9:51 am
          No is a no . Period . The judge has erred grossly . I wonder for what considerations. The victim should fight it out . We are with her .
          1. S
            Shafted mohammed
            Sep 27, 2017 at 8:39 am
            Vrunda , get the court order that he is guilty and we will put pressure on government to change the law all rapist must by law get their organ chopped and all molestors should have their balls chopped.
            1. Load More Comments