Mumbai : On the third day of the hearing of DIG Sunil Paraskar’s Anticipatory Bail Application (ABA), Chief Public Prosecutor Kalpana Chavan in reply to Rizwan Merchant’s arguments said that not resisting rape does not necessarily mean consenting, but submitting to a man’s advances.
Chavan said that just because she did not shout, scream and oppose does not mean she wanted it to be done. “The only other person present there on December 7 was the caretaker of the bungalow in Madh Island, who Paraskar knew very well. Who could she have called for help?” Chavan said. The hearing which was held at the sessions court on Thursday and presided by judge Vrushali Joshi was adjourned yet again to Friday.
She further said that Paraskar had no business taking her to show flats and bungalows to take on rent. “What business does a senior police officer have taking around an upcoming model to show her flats and bungalows that too on a working day? Even if he wanted to help her out, couldn’t he have sent someone else?” argued Chavan.
She maintained the police’s stand that Paraskar wasn’t cooperating with them and that he had even refused to divulge his email ID’s password. “All information is vital for him. He destroyed his phones, he can’t give his password. Why is he so scared to give all the information if he believes the case is false and he is innocent?” Chavan said.
To the defence counsel, Rizwan Merchant’s claims that the complainant’s tweet after the molestation and rape do not suggest that she was depressed Chavan retorted by saying that one cannot sit and cry in a room all the time. That tweeting on twitter and continuing with her work is her way of dealing with things.
She further said that the defense counsel, Rizwan Merchant met the model’s previous lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee at an Iftaar party on July 17 and offered to give her money and settle the matter out of court. She mentioned that according to their Call Detail Records Siddiquee made three calls and sent two SMSes to Merchant and received 11 calls and three SMSes from him. In addition Paraskar also made 16 calls and sent 106 SMSes to Siddiquee, and Siddiquee made eight calls and sent several SMSes to Paraskar. “These calls show that Paraskar and Merchant were talking to Siddiquee about settling this matter out of court,” Chavan said.
Advocate Siddiquee in his defence said to FPJ, “My client wanted to have a meeting with Mr Paraskar’s wife and some other people and therefore was using me to communicate with them from time to time. This fact is also on record and can be seen in the text message which my client has sent to me in July 18 where she admits I am in touch with them for her matter.”
With regards to his conversations with Merchant, he said, “My conversations with Mr Merchant were not always regarding the case. We met casually at a Ramzan Iftaar party and he just generally asked what was the purpose of my said notice – money or something else.”