Fenil and Bollywood

Posts Tagged ‘sessions court

Swati Deshpande | TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 30, 2009)


Mumbai: He’s a “small-time actor’’, and while he may be no “saint’’, he’s “no rapist’’ either. This is what actor Shiney Ahuja’s lawyers said, seeking bail pending trial on charges of raping his 20-year old maid at his Andheri home one morning.


In a fresh bid for freedom after spending more than 100 days in jail, the 35-yearold actor–through his counsel Shirish Gupte along with Shrikant Shivade–said the “victim has not even used the word ‘rape’ in her statement to the magistrate regarding the June 14 incident’’. She “had no external injuries, creating doubts over her claim that she resisted him’’, they said. The complainant had called Ahuja many times from her cellphone the pre
vious night, said Gupte.


Forensic experts have said earlier that the absence of external injuries did not mean there was no rape. A woman could be forced into the act by the threat of violence, experts reasoned.


The panchnama noted that when he was arrested on June 15, Ahuja’s left wrist and right little finger had a “nail mark’’ which the actor claimed were sustained while he was working out, and not from the victim’s nails.


The DNA analysis showed no profile was obtained from the victim’s vulval swab, but did find some evidence to match Ahuja’s “control blood component’’ in one of her smear slides. “The reports fail to conclusively establish rape,’’ Ahuja’s plea said, suggesting it was “a consensual act’’.


Saying bail was a rule and not an exception as held in numerous Supreme Court judgements, Gupte said even medical evidence had “little against the actor’’. There was “no semen and blood’’
found on the victim in the panchanama on his or her clothes and at the scene of offence, he added.


Ahuja’s bail was rejected by the sessions court in July on the grounds that he may tamper with the witness because he was “rich and influential’’. But Gupte said: “How is he influential? He has just made his name in a few films. Besides she stays in Raigad district and will only come for the trial. He doesn’t know where she is.’’


The written bail plea, however, describes Ahuja as a “well-known film personality, having won several professional awards… with roots in society’’.


The hearing will continue in the court of Justice A P Deshpande on Wednesday, when the prosecutor will oppose the bail plea.


The maid had narrated the entire incident of “forcible sexual intercourse’’ to neighbours Adarsh Gupta and Sanjeet Kaur. The neighbours then took her to the police station at Oshiwara to file the complaint.

Shiney applies for bail even as forensic report on Monday confirmed that the semen sample taken from maid’s body matches the star’s DNA

By Hetal Vyas and Deeptiman Tiwary (MUMBAI MIRROR; June 30, 2009)
The Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina on Monday confirmed that the semen sample in the vaginal swab of the maid who alleged rape, matched with the DNA of the accused, actor Shiney Ahuja.

Regardless, Shiney moved the Sessions Court last week for bail on the ground that “he is from a good family” and that some of his films are only half done and “need to be completed”.

Ahuja invoked his army background and the absence of any criminal antecedents against him as the ground of his bail. But most importantly, Ahuja argued that his films are hanging because of his incarceration and that he must be released so that he can complete them.

Ahuja’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade said, “Ahuja’s bail application mentions four main grounds: He has no criminal antecedents, he is from a good family, the trial could take a long time which may affect his unfinished films.”

Chief Public Prosecutor RV Kini said that the application would be heard on July 3.

Among Shiney’s unfinished films are Accident with Soha Ali Khan, Chaloo Movie directed by Vinod Pande, and Har Pal with Preity Zinta, for which Shiney Ahuja still has to dub.

DNA may clinch conviction

However Monday’s forensic report puts the actor on the back foot. “Any other analysis has space for doubt but not the DNA. Two people can never have the same DNA fingerprint. We got favourable results as the police were prompt in obtaining and sending us samples before they were washed away by the victim,” said a senior FSL official.

Confirming the news DCP (Zone IX) Niket Kaushik said, “The DNA report in the case supports the FIR. Ahuja’s DNA has matched with that of the semen found in the victim’s vaginal swab.”

The DNA analyses of other samples picked up from Ahuja’s house, however, have remained inconclusive. Police had sent the clothes of the victim and the accused, the bedsheet and the pillow covers of Ahuja’s bed, on which the crime was allegedly committed. An FSL investigation, did not find any semen on these samples.

Police, however, said that other reports now become immaterial as the evidence related to the intercourse has confirmed rape. Medical report of the maid also confirm physical violation. “There were injury marks on the private parts of the victim and the accused had scratches on his wrist and finger. It clearly shows that the intercourse was forced,” said a police officer.

“The report on nail clippings of the victim – to find if there is any skin or blood that matches with that of the accused – is still awaited,” said a senior officer.

The actor had to spend half the day in the court lock-up where the other accused teased and slapped him about
By Deeptiman Tiwary and Raju Shinde (MUMBAI MIRROR; June 19, 2009)
Shiney Ahuja had an eventful Thursday. For the first time since his arrest, he looked less troubled and was seen chatting and exchanging smiles with his family. Before the court proceedings started, he shouted, “I love you,” to his wife Anupam, who responded with equal glee.

Ahuja was produced by the Oshiwara police in Andheri court, which sent him to judicial custody till July 2.

While the order came in the first half of the day, the procedures to transfer him to Arthur Road jail took the whole day. And till then, Ahuja had to share space with 15 inmates, arrested for different offences, in the court lock-up.

They instantly recognised Ahuja saying: “Arey yeh to wohi filmstar hai, jisne apni bai ka game bajaya. (This is the movie star who raped his maid)” Sources say they began teasing him and even slapped him. “They were groping Ahuja every now and then; some even behaved inappropriately,” said a constable.

Ahuja soon started crying and called a policeman for help. He was then separated from the others and put in a corner of the cell. A guard was placed in the lock-up to avoid further escalation.

But the ordeal was yet not over.

At around 7.30 pm, when the police was taking Ahuja to the Arthur Road jail with the other accused, they started abusing him again and created a ruckus. However, police brought the situation under control.

The proceedings

Inside the court, police argued for Ahuja’s police custody on the grounds that the victim’s medical examination had confirmed rape; and that it was awaiting forensic results on whether Ahuja had consumed alcohol or drugs at the time of crime. Surprisingly, there was no mention of them waiting for his DNA test nor was any fresh reason cited for Ahuja’s custody.

Ahuja’s lawyer, Shrikant Shivade, argued that the actor’s custody was no longer needed for investigations and that the police’s remand application was similar to the previous one. “Not a comma or full stop has been changed,” he told court.

Shivade also said that if his client had given any confessional statement, the police should produce it in the court and that the media should be held accountable for printing such stories.

Shivade also moved an application asking why his client had been handcuffed. After the court passed its order, Shivade told the media that he would move the Sessions court on Friday for Ahuja’s bail.

Meanwhile, police recorded two more statements in the case – of Adarsh Gupta and Sanjeet Kaur. These were the first people the victim and her aunt approached on Sunday. They had helped the maid register a complaint.

Police is also planning to record statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) – the statement is recorded in front of a magistrate and cannot be retracted. As the witnesses are poor migrants, there is a possibility that they might not be available during the trial. DCP (zone IX) Niket Kaushik said, “Though we have full faith in our witnesses, we are examining the possibility of recording statement in front of a magistrate.”