Quote:

---

Originally posted by imate1

Nothing bad in the report, read the entire report carefully. Raped woman is not forced to marry but if she wishes to marry and drop the court proceedings then she can do it.
Otherwise also if she does not wish to proceed with the complaint she will turn in hostile witness in the court case.

---

Nowhere in civilized world such options are given. Only in 14th Century Islamic world this would be option. A civilized and cultured person would know that there will be tremendous pressure brought on Rape victim in India to marry her rapist. Is cji a pschologist? Didi he consult a psychologist?

Rape is a grave crime of a pervert and he should be severly punished. There can not be any compromise on this. However this moron CJI is from 14th century and expressed his views which will affect future cases. He is to be condemned.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare

Quote:

---

Originally posted by imate1

Nothing bad in the report, read the entire report carefully. Raped woman is not forced to marry but if she wishes to marry and drop the court proceedings then she can do it.
Otherwise also if she does not wish to proceed with the complaint she will turn in hostile witness in the court case.

---

Nowhere in civilized world such options are given. Only in 14th Century Islamic world this would be option. A civilized and cultured person would know that there will be tremendous pressure brought on Rape victim in India to marry her rapist. Is cji a pschologist? Didi he consult a psychologist?

Rape is a grave crime of a pervert and he should be severly punished. There can not be any compromise on this. However this moron CJI is from 14th century and expressed his views which will affect future cases. He is to be condemned.

---

I dont think you are from legal background, i tell you there is nothing bad in this. It is left to the discretion of suffering woman, not forced. Everywhere it is practised - not alone in India.
See the news report properly, it must have been reported by legal corrospondent and he/ she had not even critised CJI on this . or you tell me any other report / news published on this context whereby CJI had been critised for these remarks.

Further the remarks of CJI or any other judge outside the court have no bearing in cases handled by them in courts. The cases in courts are decided considering law, caselaws and evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by imate1

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare

Quote:

---

Originally posted by imate1

Nothing bad in the report, read the entire report carefully. Raped woman is not forced to marry but if she wishes to marry and drop the court proceedings then she can do it.
Otherwise also if she does not wish to proceed with the complaint she will turn in hostile witness in the court case.

---

Nowhere in civilized world such options are given. Only in 14th Century Islamic world this would be option. A civilized and cultured person would know that there will be tremendous pressure brought on Rape victim in India to marry her rapist. Is cji a pschologist? Didi he consult a psychologist?

Rape is a grave crime of a pervert and he should be severly punished. There can not be any compromise on this. However this moron CJI is from 14th century and expressed his views which will affect future cases. He is to be condemned.

---

I dont think you are from legal background, i tell you there is nothing bad in this. It is left to the discretion of suffering woman, not forced. Everywhere it is practised - not alone in India.
See the news report properly, it must have been reported by legal corrospondent and he/ she had not even critised CJI on this . or you tell me any other report / news published on this context whereby CJI had been critised for these remarks.

Further the remarks of CJI or any other judge outside the court have no bearing in cases handled by them in courts. The cases in courts are decided considering law, caselaws and evidence.

---

Like I said before, CJI and any one endorsing his view have 14th century mind set. May be he is CJI, meek Indian media has not critisized this cultural moron. In the North America, he would be tore apart.


This kind of pervert mentality is still in display in Islamic countries.

RIGHTS-BANGLADESH: Rape Victims Married Off to Rapists
By Tabibul Islam

1. FARIDPUR, Bangladesh, Jun 16 (IPS) - Rozina, the 16-year-old daughter of a farmer in this district of Bangladesh, is married to the man who raped her. Trapped by the dictates of village elders, threatened by the rapist's family, and finding themselves powerless to resist, Rozina's parents crumbled under the pressure.

On May 27, barely a fortnight after her abduction and rape, her marriage was solemnised in the village of Shibrampur, about 145 kilometres south-west of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18765


2. CJI stand on rape victims sparks row

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3687586



3.Punishing the Victim - Rape Victim Must Marry Rapist

Between Mukhtar Mai and now this gal, it's been a bad week for South Asian women -

An Indian rape victim is being forced by village elders to "marry" her rapist - her father-in-law, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

...Holding a special council on Sunday, village leaders ordered the mother of five to leave her husband, Noor Mohammed, and live with her parental family for seven months and 10 days and make herself "pure" again, reports said. It did not say how she becomes pure.

After that, she must "marry" her father-in-law and live with him, along with his legal wife.

Freud would also have a field day with the Oedipal Complex this sick, twisted verdict sets up for her former husband, Noor -

"She... will then be like a mother to Noor Mohammed," the local cleric Shamim Ahmad was quoted as saying.

The cops plan on intervening & arresting the father-in-law while somehow respecting the sensitivity of this religious situation. We'll see.


4 Lawyers and women's rights activists have expressed strong reservations over the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) comment that society must respect the wishes of a rape victim if she chooses to marry the rapist.

Should a rape victim marry her rapist? Tell us

"This approach could end up condoning the whole issue of rape. A rape doesn't cease to be a crime if a rapist marries the victim," additional solicitor-general Indira Jaising said. Speaking at a seminar on Sunday, CJI K.G. Balakrishnan had said: "Due regard must be given to their (the rape victims') personal autonomy since in some cases, the victim may choose to marry the perpetrator or choose to give birth to a child conceived through forced intercourse."

The statement was ironically made on the eve of International Women's Day. He had also urged judges, lawyers and social activists "not to take an overtly paternalistic approach when they have to make decisions on the welfare of rape victims".

Balakrishnan's comments are being viewed by lawyers and women activists as a pronouncement that blurs the line between a serious crime and the victim's freedom of choice. The CJI's statement reinforces the view of the raped woman being defiled and violated, said Vrinda Grover, a Delhi-based human rights lawyer and the director of Multiple Action Research Group (MARG).

"The offence of rape is also an offence against society. It is the state's duty to prosecute and not to use the vulnerability of a woman to tell her to marry her rapist," Grover said. Lawyers who take up rape cases are concerned about the legal fallout of Balakrishna's pronouncement.

Kirti Singh, the legal convener of the All-India Democratic Women's Association, said the statement seemed to imply that everything will be all right if a victim marries her rapist. "You are putting her in custody of a person who has been violent with her," she pointed out. More importantly, she said, "It's another way of letting the society pressure rape victims to get married without taking into consideration the violence they have been subjected to."

The CJI's suggestion, she added, undermined the effort of lawyers who have been working hard to include marital rape in the list of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Agreeing with this line, Abha Bhaiya, founding member of Jagori, a Delhi- based resource centre for women, said: "It will be a very compromised marriage. The rapist will continue to rape the victim."

The CJI's statement, she added, reflected a "typical male chauvinistic, patriarchal attitude that does not take into account what it means to be violated."

Vani Subramaniam, a prominent member of the women's group Saheli, feared the statement may send out wrong signals in society. "A rapist may think he can get away with the crime if he marries the victim. Is this the message the CJI wishes to send out in a country like ours where magistrates already compel rape victims to marry their rapists?" Subramaniam asked.

Pinky Anand, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, pointed to the legal implications of the CJI's suggestion. "Such an offer (a marriage proposal to the victim by the rapist) is usually mala fide - it is a device to subvert the process of justice," Anand said. She pointed out that the rapist who made such proposals had just one intention - that of getting acquitted or being given a lighter sentence.

The minimum punishment for rape is seven years (10 years for custodial rape) and the maximum is a life term. "In case the victim says she wants to marry the rapist, it becomes a factor for considering a lighter sentence," Anand said. "There's also the possibility of the rape victim turning hostile, which distorts the trial and allows the rapist to get away without conviction."

http://in.news.yahoo.com/248/20100309/1583/tnl-women-upset-with-kgb-s-remarks-on-ra.html


I am disappointed that without making any efforts to find out whether moron CJI's remark caused any reaction, you defend this.


Only unfortunate part is that this guy is still occupying his position.