The purpose of this post is not to influence any pending case. Idea is only to educate people about how the process of law and arguments work at Supreme Court level.
A woman, mother of a child, complained that 3 days ago, accused raped her.
She suffered injury on private parts and also on thigh.
She said she went home. She washed her salwar which contained seaman stains.
Then she went to doctor who made dressing on thigh injury. After consulting husband, she filed complaint after 3 days.
In Court, Doctor said, injury on thigh could have been one month old also. He also said that injury on private parts could be ten days ago also.
Accused said that due to some some land dispute, he had not paid some amount to Husband, therefore this false case is filed. He is totally innocent.
Trial Court rejected vacillating statement of Doctor and and also disbelieved story of enmity put up by accused and convicted accused and sent him to jail.
Accused appealed to High Court.
High Court said there were no stain of seaman on salwar and evidence of Doctor was not clear. Doctor at one placed said one finger could go in private part and at other place says two finger. Therefore HC gave benefit of doubt and acquitted accused.
State filed appeal in SC. SC asked accused why HC order should not be set aside and why he should not be convicted and sent to jail.
Counsel of accused strongly argued that this is false case. Injuries on thigh could have been one month old. Since she was a married woman, injuries on private part could have been done by husband also.
Now, SC Judge flared up in anger and told counsel that this is not the way to argue in Supreme Court.
We see ring of truth in statement given by woman. Do not argue flimsy and technical grounds.
Try to satisfy us why this woman should be disbelieved when she herself says that she went home and washed her salwar.
Forget all discrepancies in Doctor's evidence. Argue like a Supreme Court advocate.
The case adjourned.
I repeat. The object of this post is to educate layman about how we try to separate truth from falsehood. I have no intention to influence any case. Therefore no names, no case details are disclosed here. Name of judge is also not mentioned here.
Haresh Raichura
14/2/2013