Rape of Russian girl,SC grills accused politician

A bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A K Patnaik while rejecting the appeal filed by Fernandes against the high court order wondered as to how the girl suffered so many injuries “proximate to her private parts,” if the allegations of rape,or at least an attempt to commit the same were not true.

“How do you explain the 12-13 injuries on her thighs,knees and arms. It changes the entire complexion of the case.

“Injuries on the thigh and other areas are very proximate to her private parts,” the bench observed when counsel tried to submit that medical examination of the victim did not indicate any signs of rape.

‘ The apex court said that there apparently was no reason for a Russian girl to frame up Fernandes as claimed by him.

“She is a Russian girl,where is the need for her to file a false complaint against you. There are scratches all over the body. Definitely there appears to be an attempt to commit rape. She had no reason to grind the axe against you,” the bench observed.

The Russian girl was allegedly raped by Fernandes on December 1 near Colva beach by spiking her drinks.

The apex court said that the victim had give a graphic account of the offence and there apparently was no reason to disbelieve the same,at least to the extent that an attempt was made to rape her.

“Assuming that there is no intercourse,as far as injuries are concerned it is clear there was an attempt,” the bench observed,when the counsel kept repeating the plea that the accused was innocent and the injuries were not sufficient enough to establish the charge of rape.

At one stage,the bench also dared the counsel to read in the court portions of the actual statement made by the victim to the police on the alleged sexual assault.

When Lalit did not read the exact testimony of the victim,the bench remarked,“As a counsel you are finding it difficult to read. She is a Russian girl and has no reason to implicate you. She knows the consequences.” The apex court then proceeded to dismiss the petition but the counsel instead sought permission to withdraw the petition to which the bench agreed.