Mumbai:
Bollywood actor Shiney Ahuja, whowas sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for rapinghis domestic help, today moved the Bombay High Courtchallenging his conviction on the ground that it was a"perverse and illegal" judgement.
Shiney maintained in the appeal that even after thevictim testified under oath that neither rape nor sexualintercourse took place between them, still the lower courtheld him guilty.
"Apart from the girl denying the alleged offence, eventhe medical evidence is in negative. Evidence given bydoctors, who examined Shiney and the victim, stated that thereare no injuries on the girl's body. Even the semen and bloodsamples were negative of Shiney's DNA," the appeal stated.
Claiming that the sessions court judge committedserious error, the appeal said, "Instead of giving benefit ofexisting lapses in medical evidence and also in the statementof witnesses, to the accused, the judge has given the benefitto the prosecution. Not a single stain of semen and blood wasfound on the private parts of the girl or the accused."
The actor's appeal was admitted today and his plea forbail has been posted for hearing on April 27 by Justice ARJoshi.
"According to the testimony of a witness Rekha Mane,the girl was in a disarrayed condition and had come downrunning on the day of the incident. However, the CCTV footageof the building's lift lobby clearly shows the girl comingdown calmly with her hair neatly combed and tied and clothesin order," the appeal claimed.
On March 30, relying on circumstantial evidence, afast track court had convicted the actor for raping hisdomestic maid at his suburban residence in June 2009. However,the actor was acquitted of the charges of criminalintimidation and wrongful confinement.
The lower court while convicting Shiney, observed thatit had considered circumstantial evidence - the DNA report waspositive; the girl's hymen was broken; there were blood markson the victim's clothes and Shiney's hand bore scratch marks.
The court had disregarded the victim turning hostileduring trial and accepted her statement recorded before amagistrate.
While the girl initially alleged that the actor hadraped her, she backtracked during the trial and said that shehad lodged the complaint at the behest of the woman who hadsecured her job at the actor's residence.
Shiney maintained in the appeal that even after thevictim testified under oath that neither rape nor sexualintercourse took place between them, still the lower courtheld him guilty.
"Apart from the girl denying the alleged offence, eventhe medical evidence is in negative. Evidence given bydoctors, who examined Shiney and the victim, stated that thereare no injuries on the girl's body. Even the semen and bloodsamples were negative of Shiney's DNA," the appeal stated.
Claiming that the sessions court judge committedserious error, the appeal said, "Instead of giving benefit ofexisting lapses in medical evidence and also in the statementof witnesses, to the accused, the judge has given the benefitto the prosecution. Not a single stain of semen and blood wasfound on the private parts of the girl or the accused."
The actor's appeal was admitted today and his plea forbail has been posted for hearing on April 27 by Justice ARJoshi.
"According to the testimony of a witness Rekha Mane,the girl was in a disarrayed condition and had come downrunning on the day of the incident. However, the CCTV footageof the building's lift lobby clearly shows the girl comingdown calmly with her hair neatly combed and tied and clothesin order," the appeal claimed.
On March 30, relying on circumstantial evidence, afast track court had convicted the actor for raping hisdomestic maid at his suburban residence in June 2009. However,the actor was acquitted of the charges of criminalintimidation and wrongful confinement.
The lower court while convicting Shiney, observed thatit had considered circumstantial evidence - the DNA report waspositive; the girl's hymen was broken; there were blood markson the victim's clothes and Shiney's hand bore scratch marks.
The court had disregarded the victim turning hostileduring trial and accepted her statement recorded before amagistrate.
While the girl initially alleged that the actor hadraped her, she backtracked during the trial and said that shehad lodged the complaint at the behest of the woman who hadsecured her job at the actor's residence.
