Accused says wife mocked him
Warning: Explicit details follow.
It’s a no-brainer that a criminal trial on sexual assault would lead to discussions of sexually explicit details.
And so during a trial at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, court has heard a woman allege physical and sexual violations, of being bitten, of being pinched on the nipples, of being raped, of being sodomized, of rough finger penetration. In that context, it was curious on Thursday to hear a Toronto man facing multiple charges of assault, sexual assault and uttering threats turn into a blushing bride.
“Did you consummate your marriage after the wedding?” defence lawyer George Tsimiklis asked Rajinder Gupta, 31, who has pled not guilty to all charges.
“I feel shame talking in front of my parents. Can you send them out?” Gupta said in Punjabi through an interpreter.
The charges were brought against him in July 2015 by Gupta’s wife, whose name is under a publication ban. We’re calling her Sakhi. His mother, who has testified, is charged with assault and uttering threats. His father with uttering threats. They have also pled not guilty before Justice James Diamond.
Sakhi had testified that when she refused anal sex with Gupta he complained to his mother who then pressured her to comply, even threatened her.
If the courtroom is a microcosm of the theatrics of life, that coyness was possibly a rebuttal of that circumstance.
Otherwise, what are the odds that details of a case that has so shaken the family — the parents’ lawyer said they were financially ruined — would not already be discussed within the family in the intervening years since the accusations were first made?
Based on Gupta’s testimony, the family was not consistently conventional.
He never believed she was a virgin when he married her (they were both previously married) and it didn’t matter to him whether she was or not. His mother too testified to this same indifference to her son’s wife’s virginity. Yet, it was their defence lawyer that hammered on that when Sakhi was on the stand, saying she had lied about not consummating her first marriage. That she lied so she could have another chance at being married because virginity was so prized in the culture.
Yes, Gupta said, theirs was a traditional arranged marriage. They met briefly once after their horoscopes were matched and decided to get married.
He said they never had sex without Sakhi’s consent, she didn’t say no, she was a willing participant. On the other hand, she was the one not satisfied with her sex life.
He testified that on that very first night, when he took off his clothes, she said — and here he hesitated again. “My mom and dad are here …”
“Rajinder, you have to say it,” Tsimiklis said in a kindly voice. So he did. “She tried to hold my private part and said your banana is very small.”
The parents were not sent out of court and the testimony has proceeded without any visible signs of embarrassment since.
“It was your wedding night and it’s a marriage (Sakhi) is happy about,” said Crown attorney Kelly Simpson.
“And yet you tell us she said something like that to you? And you have no response when she said that and you just continue to have sex and there’s no problem. Sex goes well. Everything is fine.” “Yes,” he said. Sakhi had testified that Gupta forced her down and vaginally penetrated her despite her asking him to stop, twice on that wedding day, once in the evening, once at night.
She testified she was so sore she couldn’t sit properly. Rajinder called it all lies during his cross-examination.
Sakhi had said he controlled her money, dictated the clothes she wore and where should could work.
On Friday, Gupta agreed during cross-examination that he didn’t allow Sakhi to work in a restaurant like she wanted to. He wanted her to “work properly” like a factory job with regular hours. And when on one occasion she wore a “transparent” T-shirt, “a net thing where everything was visible,” to work he was very angry, told her to get lost and wanted to end the marriage.
He did not allow her to wear makeup to work.
“So this is someone who has to listen to you,” said Crown attorney Kelly Simpson. “Yes,” he said. “Are you telling us this is a person who tells you you have a small penis?”
“Yes,” he said. He said she said it to him two or three times in the course of their marriage.
“I’m going to suggest to you this would make you upset.” “It didn’t bother me initially.” “I suggest that’s something you would discuss with her.”
“No. I thought she was just making fun,” he said.
Gupta’s cross-examination continues next week.
Shree Paradkar writes about discrimination and identity. You can follow her @shreeparadkar.