The Law and The Big Squeeze

The law is an ass – Old English proverb.

I am at odds with the Karnataka High Court, which recently ruled that the act of a 38-year-old man opting to squeeze another man’s testicles during the course of a heated argument cannot be regarded as an attempt to murder. Now, in the normal course of sitting down to write my weekly blog, the subject of testicles would be the very last thing on my mind to expound upon. I leave that kind of stuff to urologists and others in the medical profession to mull over. Apart from which, strait-laced members of my family are apt to look askance at this sudden, unsavoury departure in my choice of topic. Which is probably the way it should have stayed, were it not for this morning’s esteemed daily newspaper. There it was: the headline, bold as brass, plumb, spang in the middle of the front page, Squeezing testicles in fight not ‘attempt to murder’: Karnataka High Court. Well, I mean to say! What are our newspapers, or our judiciary for that matter, coming to, I ask rhetorically. Stopped me dead in my tracks. After that, I had to read the whole, sordid bulletin.

This is what their lordships of the High Court had to say on the matter. The prose is untidy but the point gets across. ‘There was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant. During that, the accused chose to squeeze the testicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused came with an intention or with preparation to commit murder. If at all he had prepared or attempted to commit murder, he would have brought some deadly weapons to commit the murder.’ One presumes the good judge said all that with a straight face. Sounds logical enough, if a tad naïve. After all, bare hands can also be used to strangle a person to death. Overturning an order of a trial court, the High Court, in their wisdom, reduced the punishment earlier meted out, from seven to three years imprisonment. Did not the prosecuting lawyer try to convince the court that if a man’s genitals are squeezed long and hard enough, it might well lead to death? Who can say? At the very least, his self-worth could get hit for six, and he will become a spent force, in every sense of the word for the rest of his miserable life.

So why am I not joyously strewing flowers and doing my version of the Naatu Naatu at this remarkable judgement? Why has my local High Court, by virtue of this verdict, given me pause? There is this great concept called precedent, much loved by legal eagles. They pass a judgement on some subject or the other, in this case that of testicle squeezing, and next thing you know, a precedent has been set. One is now free to go about picking up a fight and without so much as a by-your-leave, aim straight for your opponent’s family jewels. No questions asked. The poor victim runs to the courts, if he is able to run at all, seeking justice for the indignity caused. Not to mention the pain suffered, and is fobbed off with an ‘All right, we can feel your pain, but he was not trying to kill you, was he? Now be reasonable. Where was the gun? Where was the murderous machete? We will put him in the cooler for three years, with two years remission for good behaviour. That should straighten the blighter out.’ ‘But judge, where does that leave me?’ bleats the victim. ‘Next case,’ bellows the judge, bringing his gavel down hard on the much-abused high table.

My point, quite simply, is this. Why is a reduced jail sentence going to act as a deterrent to this habitual squeezer of the unmentionables? Which incidentally, the courts have mentioned in excruciating detail. He sits in jail for the minimum period accorded to him, his palms itching to get at some poor sod’s nether regions, because that is what gives him the jollies. He is a pervert. The whole insidious habit builds up into an uncontrollable desire, and the moment he steps out of prison, a free man, no one is safe. The warders lolling around at the prison compound better watch out. That’s all I can say. Why could he not have behaved like a normal idiot involved in a street brawl? Some violent fisticuffs and kicking one can understand, but squeezing testicles? That’s a no ball in any language. A sensible referee would have stopped the fight instantly.

Now here is the problem we need to bend our brains to. There could be any number of thugs in the country who would have read the fine print of the Karnataka High Court judgement with glee. And, presumably, with a fine-tooth comb. I know most of them are illiterate but word gets around. Then there’s always television for those that cannot read beyond ‘the cat sat on the mat,’ or its Indian equivalent. The television set is called idiot box for a reason. The upshot of it all is that these sons of Belial go around seeking whom they may devour, screaming ‘Your money or your balls,’ in the full knowledge that their heinous act will not attract anything more than a light sentence, or better still a caution, if at all they are apprehended.

Street crime will now acquire a new avatar. It is being suggested, at least I am suggesting it, that innocent and unwary male strollers protect their private parts with those abdominal guards we employed while playing cricket. In school they were colloquially referred to as ‘ball guards.’ In case you don’t have one or the old one has seen better days, you can always order it on Amazon. I know I have one somewhere up in the loft. I will need to fish it out and give it a Dettol wash and leave it out to dry. Never know when it might come in handy. As an interesting aside, here is a question for the ages. Why do people always laugh hysterically when a batsman suffers a painful blow in his crotch? It is no laughing matter.

This judgement has left me quite distraught. Or do I mean distrait? Never mind. Suffice it to say that you would not be far wrong in describing my current mental state as being discombobulated. One reason for that is that if ordinary men like you and I are in ever-present danger of being assaulted in unusual anatomical areas of our body, I dread to think what will happen to our good women. There are, I admit, some fundamental differences in our bodily make up, men and women that is. However, it is the principle of this ghastly affair that bothers me no end.

 It seems to me that these no-good yobbos who roam our streets looking for cheap thrills, need never fear the law anymore. If they are caught in the act by a cop and challenged as to what on earth do they think they are doing, grabbing someone’s breadbasket (as I have heard it described by English cricket commentators) in broad daylight, and that they had better come to the police station handcuffed, the criminal will have a ready response. ‘Look Mr. Plod, the judge has already spoken on the matter. Am I carrying a sharp knife? No. A pistol? No. Then what is all the fuss about? I was merely having a friendly chat with this gentleman who was reluctant to part with his bulging wallet. As a means of gentle persuasion, I proceeded to apply the squeeze to those parts which will elicit a positive response. You can escort me to the station by all means, but you will get no joy out of it. Probably a suspension for your troubles.’

The befuddled cop goes cross-eyed with confusion. He decides not to get crotchety about someone’s crotch. ‘I could not follow a word of what you just said. Now you just run along and we shall say no more about it. So saying, they all part company, leaving the poor victim of physical abuse abandoned, his wallet gone and facing the gargantuan task of initiating an infructuous court case. As a final nail in the coffin, so to speak, his baritone voice has shockingly turned into a shrill soprano. How was he going to explain that to his wife?

Honestly, those eminent judges at the Karnataka High Court have a lot to answer for. Perhaps we need to knock on the doors of the overburdened Supreme Court for a second opinion. A real testing affair, this issue of the manhandled testicles. A right, royal balls-up, if ever there was one!

Footnote: As if all this was not enough, a court in Gujarat recently sentenced a man, with heavy heart, for raping a minor. Just to be clear, it was the court that bore a heavy heart, not the rapist. I understand there were extenuating and mitigating circumstances, but still, with heavy heart? Clearly, there are many bleeding hearts in our judiciary!

As I am about to post this comes news from Bihar that a woman sliced her rapist’s goolies in the dead of night with a sharp knife. A surgeon’s knife and complete castration, without an anaesthetic, would seem to be the order of the day. If one might paraphrase the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, ‘Off with his nuts.’