'Will You Marry Her?' Supreme Court Asks Man Accused Of Raping Minor

[Picheshwar]

 

[Picheshwar]

"Will you marry her?", CJI SA Bobde asked the petitioner's lawyer when the matter was taken.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/will-you-marry-her-supreme-court-asks-man-accused-of-raping-minor-170530

 

Asalu sense anedi unda!!

[dasara_bullodu1]

[betapilli]

1 minute ago, Picheshwar said:

"Will you marry her?", CJI SA Bobde asked the petitioner's lawyer when the matter was taken.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/will-you-marry-her-supreme-court-asks-man-accused-of-raping-minor-170530

 

Asalu sense anedi unda!!

Read the entire case details, it makes sense why the Supreme Court asked that question. 

[Picheshwar]

1 minute ago, betapilli said:

Read the entire case details, it makes sense why the Supreme Court asked that question. 

what made you to make this senseless statement.

[kidney]

I dont sense any logic in this.. Might the girl asked " If accused agree to marry, Shall withdraw case??"

full news dorakatlae.. ii half news SC ila endhuku adigindho still confusion..

News looks misleading to me without full info

[kidney]

2 minutes ago, betapilli said:

Read the entire case details, it makes sense why the Supreme Court asked that question. 

ekkada kaka.. i tried google thalli..

[Picheshwar]

Just now, kidney said:

ekkada kaka.. i tried google thalli..

Dani baadha endhi ante... accused and victim were of same age at that time. both were minors in 2014-15

 

[Picheshwar]

2 minutes ago, kidney said:

I dont sense any logic in this.. Might the girl asked " If accused agree to marry, Shall withdraw case??"

full news dorakatlae.. ii half news SC ila endhuku adigindho still confusion..

News looks misleading to me without full info

aa tweet lo oka advocate details ichadu choodu.

[chintumintu1]

Judge ki mind mingindi? Ee case chusukoni from now on nachina amaye oppuko pothe rape chesi tar at a court lo Pelli chesukuntaru Amo. 

 

[Ryzen_renoir]

Supreme joke of india 

[betapilli]

20 minutes ago, kidney said:

ekkada kaka.. i tried google thalli..

It says that the accused signed a 500 rupee bond paper that he will marry her when the victim becomes a major. The sessions court ruled that sex was consensual since the victim knew about the existence of condoms despite being 16. The Supreme Court ruled out that the sessions court was wrong in this case, because she was 16, there is no question of consent, and it should be deemed as rape. The victim filed a case on the accused that he promised to marry her, but ended up marrying someone else. That's why the Supreme Court asked that question. 

[Picheshwar]

6 minutes ago, betapilli said:

It says that the accused signed a 500 rupee bond paper that he will marry her when the victim becomes a major. The sessions court ruled that sex was consensual since the victim knew about the existence of condoms despite being 16. The Supreme Court ruled out that the sessions court was wrong in this case, because she was 16, there is no question of consent, and it should be deemed as rape. The victim filed a case on the accused that he promised to marry her, but ended up marrying someone else. That's why the Supreme Court asked that question. 

Arey ❤️ de.

she was minor. 
do not comment if you have no knowledge. we know you’re an AH.
 

The petitioner then threatened the victim that he would throw acid on her face if she disclosed the incident to anyone. He also threatened her with harm to her family members. Using these threats, he repeatedly raped the victim, who was in ninth standard, around 10-12 times.

One day, the victim attempted to commit suicide, but was stopped by her mother. The victim and her mother then went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the appellant. However, the petitioner's mother stopped them from doing, promising that she would get her son married to the victim once she turns 18.

[betapilli]

29 minutes ago, Picheshwar said:

Dani baadha endhi ante... accused and victim were of same age at that time. both were minors in 2014-15

 

The accused is older than the victim. The accused raped the victim, later had sex with her when she was 16 after signing on a bond paper that he will marry her. The sessions court ruled  that the sex was consensual despite her being 16 because she showed sufficient "maturity". But the Supreme Court ruled that the sessions court was wrong, and since she is a minor, sex cannot be consensual. Since the accused signed a bond paper, the Supreme Court asked that question whether he will marry her. It was put out of context. 

[Picheshwar]

1 minute ago, betapilli said:

The accused is older than the victim. The accused raped the victim, later had sex with her when she was 16 after signing on a bond paper that he will marry her. The sessions court ruled  that the sex was the despite her being 16 because she showed sufficient "maturity". But the Supreme Court ruled that the sessions court was wrong, and since she is a minor, sex cannot be consensual. Since the accused signed a bond paper, the Supreme Court asked that question whether he will marry her. It was put out of context. 

The question itself is wrong. That too from CJI.

fuckkkk context.

and fuckkk you.