Karan Oberoi Rape Case: Court proceedings will continue against pooja bedi and 7 others, know what is the whole matter?
Karan Oberoi Case: Mumbai court has ordered to continue legal proceedings against pooja bedi and seven others, which is related to karan Oberoi's rape case. Let's know what is the whole matter?
A big update has come in the 2019 karan Oberoi rape case in Mumbai. It is reported that the mumbai Sessions court has refused to stop the ongoing legal action against actress pooja bedi and seven others. This case is related to revealing the identity of a rape victim. Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate court had initiated action against pooja bedi, Anveshi Jain, chaitanya Bhosale, Varkey Patani, gurbani Oberoi, Sherlyn Varghese, sudhanshu pandey and lawyer Dinesh Tiwari. It is alleged that these people made the victim's personal information public in a press conference, which is a violation of Section 228A of the indian Penal Code. This section talks about hiding the identity of rape victims so that their dignity and privacy is preserved.
According to the report of Free press Journal, the court made it clear that if one or more people named the victim, then everyone would be held responsible. At the same time, the defense claimed that their intention was not wrong and the allegations were normal, but the court asked to prove it during the trial.
According to the police investigation, this press conference was held on 5 May 2019 at pooja Bedi's house. In this, the name of the woman who complained of rape against karan Oberoi and other sensitive information was allegedly put in front of everyone. police say that the video of this conference spread on many platforms and is still available online today. After this, on 26 february 2021, the Metropolitan Magistrate court ordered action against them.
In april 2022, pooja bedi and the rest of the accused appealed to the Sessions Court. They said that not everyone had the same intention and not everyone revealed the victim's information. He claimed that there was no 'common intention' or 'ill intent'. But the court rejected his appeal and asked him to prove these things during the hearing.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel