Disgusting and Shameful!!!

I am so agitated and angry, so please excuse my french if in the anger I keep swearing.
The judgment can be read here

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Crl.P.163_to_171&S.M.C5_2005.pdf

I don’t intend to write here any rebuttal or post-mortem of this “judgment” as I think this “judgment” is worse than the decision of the punchayat who ordered the gang rap of Mukhtaran Mai. I however want to highlight some parts of this.
I will be using this analogy of judges daughter or my own daughter as I consider that Mukhtara Mai was also my daughter and of course there is no ill intention in using this analogy.
One “judge” establishes the Triple innocence of the accused.
Here is how does that .. as I said using the daughter’s example I hope in future no one quotes his “judgement” to establish the innocence of his “daughter’s” rapist.
1. First of all the “judge” abusing the the William Black Stone (sic.) maxim , want to quit ten “rapists” in order to save the one “innocent”. I must say that I would like to ask a simple question, if their daughter is raped by 10 persons, but there eleven persons present at the time of rape , would they acquit all ten in order to save the one innocent.
2. The “judge” disallowing the use of “rule of common intention” to the prosecution, declares that “they are not impressed that rule of common intention can be stretched to any person present at the time of alleged occurrence”.
Again if 15 person present on any eventful night, discuss about one’s daughter and then 10 of them rape the daughter, I would see how can “rule of common intention” be ignored in that case.
3. At another place in the “judgment” , the “judge” says that since there was only moon light in the room and there was no electricity in the village, how could Mukhtara Mai know how many people raped her and how can she name them. To be honest I feel extremely ashamed to used the analogy of “judges” daughter here… but the “judge” felt no shame in writing how can a lady tell how many people raped her in the darkness.

Besides, the village has no electricity, no PW has given the time of occurrence, but even if gathered by joining the scattered pieces of evidence, it was somewhere after midnight on 22.6.2002; the prosecutrix remained outside Khaliq’s house for a short while, so how could she in the darkness identify these eight persons by name and parentage.

After establishing the “triple” innocence of the rapists, the “judge” goes on to elaborate the “sanctity” , “virtue” and “respect” of the rapists family. Here is the paragraph read and ponder.

asking the prosecution version on its face value as correct, it does not appeal to reason that Salma’s brother, who alongwith two others when committed sodomy with Shakoor, was so naïve to understand that Shakoor would not disclose their misdeed to anyone, and on his unexpected refusal they took the extreme measure of confining him in his own house alongwith Salma; risking, endangering and putting at stake, the virtue, the sanctity and respect of a young unmarried sister. It is incomprehensible that his other family members including the mother, other brothers, sister would allow this nefarious design to be carried out and would all become a party with him to do away with sacredness of their innocent daughter. This is absolutely not done or conceivable in our rural society, where people are very sensitive about the chastity of their womenfolk, especially young and virgin.

Again I want you to ponder on bold sentences in above quote.
And now read this (as I said the more I read this “judgement” the more I get agitated. Look at the quote around the word ‘shame’ in the following , and how eager, excited and glad the “judge” is to continuously refer to “sodomy” and child not telling anyone…. Honestly I can tell that there is a vast majority of young children everyday being “sodomized” by the “judges”..err rapists and all of these children out of shame never tell this to anyone and they live in constant ‘shame’ for whole of their life. But the “judge” does not want to believe in it. )

It is unbelievable that the boy for ‘shame’ would not tell the true story, lose the chance of liberty and the sympathies when Maulvi Razzak alongwith the police had reached the spot for rescuing him, rather would go to the police station instead of securing his liberation and exoneration from the charge of rape. Strangely even in the police station did not reveal his sodomy to any one.

And now how could it be complete with the reference to “Molvi”… read this and ponder

is strange and incomprehensible that being an Imam of the mosque, a mature, responsible, educated person, he would act in a way, that without even verifying the occurrence from any authentic source; not from the immediate relations of the complainant side as to whether the story is true or otherwise or they would like for it to be announced in the mosque or not, he disclosed it in his juma speech, without even the permission of the complainant side.
Then the “judge” keeps on ridiculing the prosecution witnesses, he want’s to show his knowledge of Shakespeare too
To us, as put by Shakespeare, in Hamlet, the role of Maulvi Abdul Razzak (PW-11) is “like Hamlet without the Prince” (Hamlet).

…. I can’t just read this “judgment” , but please keep reading

PW-10 Shakoor stated, that when he reached home he discovered that Ziadati had been committed with his sister, it is then he disclosed the Ziadati was committed with him too. It is not plausible that neither at the police station, nor while coming alongwith PW-13, he mentioned about his Ziadati.

So the “judge” is surprised why young kid Shakoor did not tell “Ziadti” was committed with him too.

Read this and ponder more …

The absence of injures and marks on the body of a prosecutrix should not be the only factor to disbelieve her version in an ordinary rape case, but where a woman has been forcibly raped for full one hour, by four young individuals on the bare floor, it is not expected that she would not struggle and in the course would sustain no marks or injury. This, of course, is not a conclusive proof or disproof of rape and the learned High Court has rightly held it to be unusual; we have no reasons to differ with it.

Please note Aitzaz already argued about the non-presence of “marks” on body etc… I don’t need to quote them here… I want you to look at the language of above paragraph and see the wordings like “bare floor” and “four young individuals” , besides Shakespeare I think Nancy Friday was also under reading.
Reading the whole judgment you will find that how difficult it will be for women to prove her gang rap in future in Pakistan, she would have to ensure the following when rapist commit rape with her.
1. Have a well lit room, if there is no electricity than arrange generator. The darkness in the room may cast doubt on the presence of rapists in the room.
2. Ensure that she after the rape immediately go for a DNA and semen test to prove 4 or more person had intercourse with her, in order to prove that “gang” rape was committed she must bring the test report which shows that more than one person had intercourse with her.
3. Ensure that she had enough marks on her body even after few days of the incident to prove her struggle. if there are no marks then either only one person committed intercourse with her or she was not on “bare floor” or she did not “struggle”.
4. Ensure that she tells everybody in the village and better come on the tv channel (there are so many of them now) to announce she has been gang raped.
5. Ensure that while running out of the room after the rape , she remembers whether she was holding “shalwar” in her hand or forgot it in the room.
6. Finally all the “rapists” are innocent until proven “without a doubt” that each of them actually committed the intercourse. Hence if any one present at that time does not commit the intercourse , the victim should request them to do so. Otherwise benefit of doubt will be given to all the rapists.
7. It is important for the victim to understand that rapists belong to “respectable” family , they would not commit rape in their own home , therefore it will be in the benefit of the victim to “arrange” the rape in her own home. Otherwise keeping in account the “respectability” of the rapist’s family, benefit of doubt will be given to rapist.