Shiney Ahuja never raped me, says ‘victim’ house-maid

Having regard to such cases in the country what could have been the best deal?

@ Charanpreet


You forgot that a "special team of 3 public servants on exchequers money" from NCW and WCD "specially flew - in" to Mumbai and made this case a front page national rukus and this celebrity had to be banished to Noida (NCR of Delhi) during the "trial period" and his ordeal is similar to "tadipad" concept as orderered in Mumbai (to underworld chaps).


Anyhow now here is a aam adami's take "She can tomorrow change her version and state "I made false statement on the promise from Shiney to get one crore rupees !"



Que. 1: Will NCW and WCD "RESTORE A MARRIED MAN's DIGNITY" such as in this celebrity's reported  case?


Que. 2: Will NCW and WCD compensate his "professional opportunity lost" costs ?


Que. 3: Will NCW and WCD including Brinda Karat, Girija Vyas, Ranjana Kumari and Renuka Chowdhary have guts to call for "PERJURY TRAIL" on this ERRANT FEMALE ?


Que. 4: Will LCI forum godfather and godbrother's of ld. errant wives (read errant feminist) here still say that these are "one such incidence"?

 

Arun Sir. Now these bl**dy NCW and WCD will back out. They will or cannot do anything. Again I always say persons like Brinda Karat, Girija Vyas, Ranjana Kumari, Renuka Chowdhary and Ambika Soni is misleading or  misguiding todays' women to get women votes. These are well settled women who dont have any work and they are just into this profession for there name sake. They don't want to educate women, they just want every women to fight against men and what I feel these NCW and WCD are the main cause of increasing no. of Dowry and Divorce cases. I pray to GOD (I should not say this but I cannot control), once these cases should be filed on these women leaders from there so called daughter in law(BAHU), then they will realise the trauma of these cases.

@ Charanpreet

Your wish to GOD can't never be fulfilled because none of them are married and / or married with a male child ! That is the reason why they are "male haters".

Oops this means the female child will marry and these creatures will help them to file fake cases against husband families. GOD protect the would be husband families...:-)LOL.

NCW – Foot In Mouth syndrome -  Action be taken against Shiney Ahuja's maid


After domestic help who accused the actor of rape did a U-turn in a court, the NCW says hostile victims should not be spared....

In trouble? The maid, who had accused actor Shiney Ahuja (inset) of rape, retracted her statement in the Sewri fast track court

After a series of cases of rape victims backpedalling on their statements, the National Commission for Women (NCW) has said that some action must be taken against the ones that turning hostile in rape trials. The resolve comes after the victim in the Shiney Ahuja rape case retracted from her statement in the Sewri fast track court.

When MiD DAY contacted Girija Vyas, the NCW president, she said, "Action should be taken against victims turning hostile in rape cases. Such incidents act against women who are actually seeking justice. We cannot allow anyone to lose faith in the judiciary. We will be in a position to comment more once the judgment in the Shiney Ahuja case is out." 

Earlier, two accused in a rape case were acquitted as the victims turned hostile. Former Shiromani Akali Dal MLA from Dhuri Gaganjit Barnala, was acquitted in February last year, after the victim, who had accused Barnala of raping and injuring her at his residence three years back, revoked her statement in court stating that she fell from a cycle and got injured. 

Similarly, in December 2008, Satish Kapoor, who works with the water works department of IT Park, Chandigarh, was acquitted after his domestic help retracted stating that she never complained about her employer to the police.

The story so far

Actor Shiney Ahuja was accused of rape by his domestic help last year, and was arrested on June 14, 2009. As it turns out, the 20-year old maid confessed in a fast track court that the rape charges were a set up. Ahuja had to spend three months in jail last year. Five witnesses, including the victim, have been examined so far.

The next hearing of the case is September 15.  

The victim

The maid, Smita Jadhav (named changed), came to Mumbai from Roha, a village 120 km from the city, to overcome her family's financial problems. With the help of a cousin who resided at Virar, Smita got a job as a maidservant in Oshiwara. The family was happy to receive financial help from their daughter. But, the happiness did not last long, as Smita alleged her employer   Shiney Ahuja of raping her  last June.

The incident allegedly took place at the actor's Oshiwara flat, when his wife was away in Delhi. Soon after the incident, a traumatised Smita went to her uncle's house in Alibaug. Eventually, she returned to her parents' house in Roha. Sources say that currently Smita's father works with a local NCP leader to support his four daughters and a son.

Source:
https://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/sep/090910-shiney-ahuja-rape-case-maid-hostile-witness.htm

Charanpreet Hora

Governemnt should wake up and give stringent punishment ot women who file allegations like Rape, Dowry cases and afterwards take it back, after runing victims life. These women should be fired or should be crashed with stones like there is a decision for thrasing a women with stones in IRAN. Long live Indian Judiciary.

The rule of law, in any democratic country will not allow even a rapist to be  fired, thrashed  and crushed with stones, let alone a witness who contradicted her/his own statement. Fortunately we are not following the system of governance in Iran. Let the "opportunity lost /cost" of the accused be decided by the court....but there is not even an iota of hope that Mr. CH's wishes would materialise at anytime, whatever be the urgency of his advocacy for crushing such women/(men) with stones, or setting them on fire, or thrashing them in public. 

@Renuka Gupata

Are you in favour of punishing the perjurers at least u/s 344.cr.p.c. INVARIABLY as in the following case?

2008 AIR 2965, 2008(10  )SCR869 , 2008(8   )SCC34  , 2008(10  )SCALE97  , 2008(7   )JT537

 REPORTABLE

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.           OF 2008
   (CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NOS.8515-8516 OF 2008)



Mahila Vinod Kumar        i                           .....

Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh                          .....Respondent

                       JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.



1.   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.



2.   Delay condoned.



3.   Though, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave

petitions, but we find that there is a need for expressing views

on action to be taken for maliciously setting law into motion.
4.   The petitioner lodged a report against two persons at

Pichhore Police Station to the effect that on 28.1.1993

between 6.00 to 7.00 a.m. she was waylaid by them who

dragged her and committed rape on her, one after another.

She claimed to have narrated the incident to her father and

uncle and, thereafter lodged the report at the police station.

On the basis of the report, matter was investigated.        The

accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed. The

accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence

punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short `the IPC'). The accused persons abjured their

guilt. During trial, the petitioner stated that she had actually

not been raped.    As she resiled from the statement made

during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined

by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first

information report (Exh.P-1) and to have given any statement

to the police (Exh.P-2). In view of the statement of the

petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted by

judgment dated 28.11.2001. The Trial Court found that the

                              2
petitioner had tendered false evidence and had fabricated

evidence against the accused persons with the intention that

such evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and,

therefore, directed cognizance in terms of Section 344 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') to be

taken against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued

and the case was registered against the petitioner who filed

reply to the effect that being an illiterate lady, she had

committed the mistake and may be excused. The Trial Court

found that the petitioner admitted her guilt that she had

lodged false report of rape against the accused.   She was,

accordingly, sentenced to undergo three months' simple

imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an

appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by the

impugned order, was dismissed.



5.   Stand before the High Court was that being an illiterate

lady, she does not understand law and the particulars of the

offence were not explained to her and, therefore, the appeal

should be allowed. This was opposed by the State on the


                            3
ground that the petitioner had admitted her guilt before the

Trial Court and, therefore, the conviction is well founded. The

High Court perused the records of the Trial Court and found

that in the show-cause reply she had admitted that she had

told lies all through. The stand that the particulars of the

offence were not explained to her, was found to be equally

untenable, because in the show-cause notice issued, relevant

details were given.   In the first information report, and the

statement recorded by the police, she had clearly stated that

she was raped by the accused persons. But in Court she

denied to have stated so. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted   that   the   Court    imposed   15   days'   simple

imprisonment which is harsh. But that is not the end of the

matter. The petitioner filed an application before the High

Court stating that a wrong statement was made before the

High Court that she had already suffered custody for 15 days,

which weighed with the High Court to reduce the sentence.



6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that being a girl

of tender age, she was pressurized by her mother and uncle to


                              4
give a false report.   This is at variance with the statement

made in court during trial to the effect that she had not

reported anything to the police. It is a settled position in law

that so far as s*xual offences are concerned, sanctity is

attached to the statement of a victim. This Court, has, in

several cases, held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone

is sufficient for the purpose of conviction if it is found to be

reliable, cogent and credible. In the present case, on the basis

of the allegations made by the petitioner, two persons were

arrested and had to face trial and suffered the ignominy of

being involved in a serious offence like rape. Their acquittal,

may, to a certain extent, have washed away the stigma, but

that is not enough.    The purpose of enacting Section 344,

Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 479-A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as `the Old

Code') appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to

deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the

weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature

underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of

perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and

                              5
can be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to take

recourse to Section 340(1) (corresponding to Section 476 of

the Old Code) in cases in which they are failed to take action

under Section 344 Cr.P.C.



7.    This   section   introduces     an   additional   alternative

procedure to punish perjury by the very Court before which it

is committed in place of old Section 479 A which did not have

the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury. The salient

features of this new provision are:

(1)   Special powers have been conferred on two specified

      Courts, namely Court of Session and Magistrate of the

      First Class, to take cognizance of an offence of perjury

      committed by a witness in a proceeding before it instead

      of filing a complaint before a Magistrate and try and

      punish the offender by following the procedure of

      summary trials. For summary trial, see Ch. 21.




                               6
(2)   This power is to be exercised after having the matter

      considered by the Court only at the time of delivery of the

      judgment or final order.

(3)   The offender shall be given a reasonable opportunity of

      showing cause before he is punished.

(4)   The maximum sentence that may be imposed is 3

      month's imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500 or both.

(5)   The order of the Court is appealable (vide S. 351).

(6)   The procedure in this section is an alternative to one

      under Sections 340-343. The Court has been given an

      option to proceed to punish summarily under this

      section or to resort to ordinary procedure by way of

      complaint under Section 340 so that, as for instance,

      where the Court is of opinion that perjury committed is

      likely to raise complicated questions or deserves more

      severe punishment than that permitted under this

      section or the case is otherwise of such a nature or for

      some reasons considered to be such that the case should

      be disposed of under the ordinary procedure which




                                 7
      would be more appropriate, the Court may chose to do so

      [vide sub-section (3)].

(7)   Further proceedings of any trial initiated under this

      section shall be stayed and thus, any sentence imposed

      shall also not be executed until the disposal of an appeal

      or revision against the judgment or order in the main

      proceedings in which the witness gave perjured evidence

      or fabricated false evidence [vide sub-section (4)].




8.    For exercising the powers under the section the Court at

the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first

instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness

before it has either intentionally given false evidence or

fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the

Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of

justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily

by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by

the   witness.   And    the     third   condition   is   that   before

commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness



                                  8
must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why

he should not be so punished. All these conditions arc

mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v. State of Muharashtra,

(1971) 2 SCC 182].



9.    The object of the provision is to deal with the evil perjury

in a summary way.



10.   The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in

cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the

menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the

provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently

done.



11.   In the case at hand, the court has rightly taken action

and we find nothing infirm in the order of the Trial Court and

the High Court to warrant interference. The special leave

petitions are, accordingly dismissed.




                               9
                     ................................J.
                     (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)



                     ................................J.
                     (P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi:
July 11, 2008




                10


Mr. Jogeshawar, read my reply properly.I have said Indian law rooted in the democratic process will not allow even the hard core criminal to be stoned like what they do in Iran. Do not unnecessarily put words into my mouth by your query which has nothing to be answered. Give me one example where the courts have asked that a criminal should be stoned /trashed to death or should be set on fire. So again I repeat read my reply carefully, before posing your queries. I am writing this to clarify my stand, which I have done and there will not be anymore replies from my side to your queries anymore.

@Renuka Gupata

That is your issue with Charanpreet Hora.I am not joining it. We can not make law here but CERTAINLY WE CAN EVOLVE COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE within the existing frame work of law. Trust, you will appreciate the perspective.

 the maid and those people who made her file false complaint  shud all be punished severely.

genuine cases suffer becoz of the backlog of cases of such cunning people who waste  time of courts and police..

@Aishwarya

Absolutely right with addition 'too' in the first sentence