A Bombay High Court Judge Pushpa Ganediwala has ruled that groping a child through their clothes not amount to sexual assault. The guy was fondling a 13 year girl’s boobs without removing her clothes. That is OK with that Bombay High Court Judge. According to the judge the accused did not make skin to skin contact.
The same judge, in a different case, ruled unzipping a girl’s pant or holding her hand do not amount to sexual assault.
This is one extreme judgement. I wonder how the judge would have ruled if the victim is her own daughter or any relative. In my opinion she should be dismissed from the job.
Indian Attorney General called the judgement “very disturbing” and brought this to the attention of the Indian Supreme Court.
Different country, different judge, similar case – same day
In Malaysia, a female judge Gunasundari (Malaysian Tamil), for a similar case (a man sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl) sentenced him to a corporal punishment of 24 caning and 1050 years in jail.
This is another extreme judgement. Caning 24 times as a corporal punishment is fine. But 1050 years in jail? Is this a show off? Does the judge expect him to live 1050 years? If she wanted him never to get out of prison, she could have given a judgement of 125 years in jail without parole. (He may not live for more than 100 years, 125 years just to be on the safe side.)
What do you think?
I just wonder how a female judge has given such a ruling. Won't this give a way for a rapist to escape by telling I used condom, there is no skin to skin contact? Malaysian judgement is another extreme. Why not the ruling be practical and realistic. This is my personal contention
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Gowri. I agree with your personal contention. They both are appalling.
DeleteThat's an interesting point about the condom and no skin contact.
DeleteVerrrrry Interesting!
Regards,
Bill Clinton
Thanks for your comments Bill. You and that Bombay High Court Judge must have gone to the same law college. We still remember your infamous words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
DeleteThe Indian judgement clearly states the level of corruption blindness and stupidity in the Indian justice system .... maybe it should be closed for its of no use to regular middle class /poor people....its only for the rich..... As for the Malaysian judgement, that could have a reasoning as it could mean something similar to 10 life sentences for 10 different crimes committed..... also it could mean .... no parole allowed ....we don't know the reason for it so we shouldn't be quick to judge on that.... that is my thought process on that.....
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Dee. The lastest FYI. The same Mumbai High Court judge has ruled asking for dowry from the wife (after marriage) is not a crime. In Malaysia, it was not 10 different crimes. It was one crime. If she wanted to set an example, why stop at 1050 years. Give him 10,000 years.
DeleteI just remembered a scene from a Tamil movie. Forgot the name of the movie. The husband is torturing newly married wife to bring some more dowry from her dad. She replies: My mother used to bathe me, put powder all over my body and dress me when I was young. After a few years, when I grew some more, she stopped doing that. Now, a few hours after my marriage, I have to stand naked in front of you. And, for that my dad has to pay you?
DeleteFar worser cases go unpunished... I wonder how accountability works for Judges... After many many years just one judge got implicated on corruption charges, that too recently...
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Rajesh. Most of the Indian judges are not straight foward.
DeleteThe SC ,I understand, has since withdrawn its recommendation for her appointment as permanent judge following her inexplicable controversial judgments.
ReplyDeleteThe 1050 years of incarceration at Malaysia longer than human life, I believe, is presumably an expression of her abhorrence at the offense.
Thanks for your comments Mr. KP. I am glad she was not made a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.
DeleteNot two judgements, SG, three. In one case, the same she acquitted the accused, claiming that the evidence provided does not suffice the rapist to be punished.
ReplyDeleteShe may be a permissive society female, covertly at least. Otherwise how can she arrive at such verdicts?
In Malaysia, might be there a point after ten(10.50) and it might be a typo. Or she might have emphasized the extent of the crime, committed by the culprit. Women sometimes exhibit strange behaviour in key-positions.
Anyway that judge has been debarred from being permanent in the post.
Thanks for your comments Sarala. I am glad she was not made a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court. You are absolutely correct. Women sometimes exhibit strange behavior in key-positions,
DeleteI don't see anything wrong with Pushpa Ganediwala's decision regarding touching a 13 year old.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Jerry Lee Lewis
Thanks for your comments Jerry (not to be confused with with the famous actor-comedian Jerry Lewis). You were a great rock and roll singer. But your career was destroyed because you married a 13 year old girl. You should have had good PR people. When Elvis Presley did the same thing, not a word of scandal was leaked out.
DeleteI was totally disgusted with Indian judge’s verdict, she should have been sacked but in Mumbai of today everything goes
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Renu. She definitely should have been sacked.
Delete