Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

The latest news that is absolutely revolting is the allegation that Shiney Ahuja, an actor in the Hindi film industry, had raped his own housemaid in his own house in his own matrimonial bed. The interesting part was that the rape is alleged to have occurred when none was around and none heard anything indicating any distress when the alleged rape is said to have been committed. The fact as to whether a rape had taken place or not is not my concern in this blog as much as the statement said to have been made by Shiney Ahuja’s wife Anupam Ahuja.


In this vast country of over 1.2 billion people, if one were to go by individual opinions, there would be no way of arriving at any conclusion. So i take recourse to the good old Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code of 1860, which defines rape as under:-

[375. Rape.

A man is said to commit “rape” who has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: –

First: – Against her will.

Secondly: –without her consent.

Thirdly: – With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly: –With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly: – With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly: – With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation: – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.


Macaulay missed something which has been so prominently pronounced in the Bible. He was obviously making laws for the native Indians and his efforts to codify the criminal laws in England miserably failed.

I have excerpted here below the verses from the Book of Genesis Chapter 19 : 30-36. The Bible besides being Scripture inspired by God for man’s edification, is also compendium of human affairs, which covers an extensive period that one could take recourse to it for history and facts too.

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

The incident clearly spells out that MEN could be raped AGAINST THEIR WILL, CONSENT & UNDER FORCED INTOXICATION. Macaulay who was given to much reading of the Bible and the influence therefrom had conveniently ignored this incident and made RAPE possible only by MEN.

As the law stands today, there is very little scope for the Courts to interpret RAPE as a gender neutral issue. The perpetrator has to be a man and a man only. It is the absolute responsibility of the MALE to preserve his genitals from being salaciously predated by lustful women, as, if semen is found in the vaginal smear of the complaining woman the man would be left without a defence.

Therefore, Anupam Ahuja’s interpretation that the rape was committed by the house maid on her innocent husband may be a possibility, in the realm of possibilities, but cannot be sustained in law. Citing movies like AITRAAZ, is interesting and may appeal to the movie smitten rabble, but carries very less weight.

Anupam Ahuja should have known that when a man is left alone with a woman, as per the in-built mechanism of life, HIS TASTE DECLINES & HIS APPETITE ENHANCES.

Assuming that sex had taken place with the consent of the maid, it is nothing new that after the very act, the woman might regret having lost something and to gain publicity could have said that the act was without her will and without her consent. She has nothing MORE to lose. Aided by those WOMEN’S organization to egg her on to sustain the tempo to enhance their visibility.

In any case Shiney’s future in the industry or otherwise, doesn’t seem so shiny, as the allegation is made by a person whose standing in the society is more likely to elicit sympathy for the maid.

BAD CAREER MOVE, SHINEY!! (who would love to be paired with a man who had slept with his servant maid? Yes, Beckham would have had it with his baby sitter, but Shiney is no Beckham and Anupam is no Spice Girl either!!!)

Comments on: "SHINEY AHUJA & RAPE!!" (3)

  1. Santiago said:

    Wonderful rape story. And the detailed view of of sec 375, and about Lot and his daughters. Enjoyed.


  2. movid said:

    The following article by Jill M.Smith, gives a very interesting view on CONSENT and WITHDRAWAL of Consent!!

    Consent, Penetration and Autonomy:
    How a Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruling
    demeaned and oppressed women,
    and almost got away with it.

    – Jill M. Smith
    December 1, 2008

    A victim’s right to say stop at any point in a sexual assault was preserved by Maryland’s highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals (“high court”) on April 16, 2008. The case was closely followed by many sexual assault awareness groups, legal organizations and women interested to see whether the high court would interpret state law to deny a woman the lawful ability to withdraw her consent after a sexual activity was initiated.
    The case, Baby v. Maryland, focused on whether the victim was legally entitled to withdraw consent after penetration occurred. The first ruling was that once a woman said yes and began sex, if the woman then changed her mind and told the man to stop, and if he continued by force, it was not rape.
    The Baby jury asked: “If a female consents to sex initially and, during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind…does the result constitute rape?” This case is important to consenting adults because it determined whether a person who initially consents to sex but changes his or her mind during sex forfeits the ability to say “No, stop!” The answer must be that a woman or a man always has the right to say “No.”
    Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals (“intermediate court”), an intermediate appellate court, ignored a woman’s right to say “No.” The intermediate court favored English common law and a twisted interpretation of Maryland 1980 case law. In October 2006, the intermediate court first issued its startlingly archaic opinion, stating that if a woman “consents [to sexual intercourse] prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape.”
    Ignoring centuries of progress in rape law, equal rights and cultural norms, the intermediate court denied Maryland women the opportunity to recant consent. The 1980 Maryland case cited by the court did not even face the same consent withdrawal after penetration issue. Rather, that case said in dictum, almost as an afterthought, that “ordinarily” there would be no rape if a woman withdrew her consent after penetration. Though that 1980 opinion is devastatingly harsh, that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals would apply the sharp edge of “ordinarily” to deny a woman the right to withdraw her consent is outright appalling and offensive.
    Even more offensive was the standard upon which the intermediate court found appropriate to base its decision. The court harkened back to the time when rape was a crime against a virgin’s father as property-owner. The theory goes that, once a virgin is violated by penetration, her “value” diminishes so greatly that whether intercourse ceases matters not, irreparable damage has been done. That any court of the United States, in the twenty-first century, could rely on this property-based, abhorrent and disgusting standard when applying rape law is almost unbelievable.
    Maryland’s high court severely criticized the intermediate court’s reliance on the property-based approach to rape law. Digging deeply into the history of English common law, the high court went out of its way to point out that as long ago as Henry III’s reign, English common law of rape had evolved to encompass the idea that even a non-virgin could be a victim of rape. The court went on to write thoroughly on the history of withdrawal of consent in state rape law around the country.
    The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed that the “ordinarily” phrase, relied upon so heavily by the intermediate appellate court, was a collateral statement and dicta from a case that failed to deal with the same issue and has no precedential value in Maryland law. The intermediate court improperly relied on the 1980 Maryland case.
    Though the high court dismissed reliance upon the “ordinarily” statement, it was only by a 4-3 margin. However, even those justices who felt the “ordinarily” statement was law agreed they would have voted to overrule that law. Thus, the judgment on the issue of consent withdrawal after penetration was essentially decided unanimously.
    The court affirmatively interpreted Maryland law to find that “a woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and that, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape.”


  3. Arshad said:

    Very nice story sir, I think law should be modified


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: