At various times in her testimony in a Toronto court, a woman, whose name is under a publication ban, has said her first marriage was not consummated.  She has said that marriage broke down right away when it turned out that the groom was in love with his cousin.  She has described that cousin standing in the bridal party and telling her — the bride — that the groom would never touch her.  She recently mentioned how the man married her because he wanted her to sponsor him so he could come to Canada. 

Yesterday, the woman we’re calling Sakhi described how, after they went into the bridal bedroom, the cousin was sleeping there. 

“Why haven’t you told us this before?”  demanded defence lawyer George Tsimiklis at the Ontario Court of Justice on Monday. 

“Because you haven’t asked before,” said Sakhi. 

That marriage isn’t even the reason Sakhi is in court; it’s because of a second marriage, one that has led to multiple charges of assault, sexual assault and uttering threats being laid against Rajinder Gupta, and charges of assault and uttering threats being laid against his mother Sheela Gupta.  His father Vinod Gupta is charged with uttering threats.  They have all pleaded not guilty in a trial before Superior Court Justice James Diamond that began April 9. 

Sakhi has testified to being bitten, slapped, raped, having her hair pulled and threatened with death.  Her cross examination began last week and continues. 

The defence seems to be making the case that Sakhi is trying to get out of the marriage without stigma by using the second of two “honourable ways,” as defence lawyer George Tsimiklis called them last week: by claiming assault.  For evidence, they are trying to establish a pattern, saying she has tried this before, using the other “honourable way”: professing a marriage wasn’t consummated. 

Based on what the defence has said so far, Sakhi would have to be both bold enough to bring false accusations to court, and timid enough to acquiesce to sex, even if she didn’t want it. 

“The expectation on you was to obey your husband’s reasonable requests?”  Tsmiklis asked. 

“Yes.” 

“Isn’t it reasonable that your husband’s wishes to consummate a marriage is something you would comply with?” 

“Reasonable — however it has to have happened with the consent of both,” she said. 

A little earlier, Tsmiklis had said, “I’m going to suggest that you were nervous and scared, but you never said no.” 

“I was saying ‘no,’ but he was not agreeing.  I was extremely scared,” Sakhi said. 

In the third week of this trial, it’s starting to feel as though to be a woman is to be burdened with the task of maintaining a detailed diary documenting every tedious detail of your life — for fear it be needed some day in court. 

Sakhi had to dredge up every detail from a past marriage.  Then she also had to remember the minutiae of not just the assaults she alleges, but the events around them. 

Tsmiklis fell ill halfway through Monday and Sheela Gupta’s lawyer Lakhwinder Sandhu took over the cross-examination. 

Sandhu asked Sakhi how many times in the course of her three-month marriage her parents visited her. 

“Maybe two or three times,” she said. 

“When was the first time your parents visited his (Gupta’s) house?” 

“When I was sick, they came for the first time,” she said. 

How many days after your wedding did they come, he asked. 

“I don’t remember.” 

“When was the last time your parents visited Rajinder Gupta’s house?” 

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“I don’t remember the date.” 

“How many days before July 13, 2015 (the day she went to police) did your parents visit?” 

“I don’t remember.” 

“I suggest you cannot tell us, because you didn’t memorize this point of your story.” 

Under pressure, Sakhi sometimes gives spirited responses: “I can’t remember the dates.  That doesn’t mean it’s a story.” 

There is no jury at this trial. 

Sakhi testifies in Punjabi through interpreters.  It’s a thankless job, interpretation: it’s expected to be seamless and only comes under scrutiny when there’s a mistake. 

At one point last week, Tsmiklis was suggesting to Sakhi that, on one occasion, when she said no to sex, Gupta complied, and didn’t force her. 

“But he gave me pain,” she said through the interpreter.  Then the interpreter said, “My body was red from biting and he put his penis into my vagina that night.” 

That wasn’t what I heard. 

From the bits of the language I understood, I thought what she said translated to, “He didn’t have sex with me.  That was the only pain left to give.”  In other words, I understood her to be saying he violated her in every way short of having sex. 

I’m a mute spectator here, but crown attorney Kelly Simpson who sits with the Toronto Police officer-in-charge Jessie Verma, who does speak Punjabi, stood up to correct that. 

Sakhi was asked to leave the courtroom, and on return, was re-examined on that point. “ He bit me,” she said clearly, “but didn’t have sex.” 

Sometimes the system works.  Sakhi’s cross-examination continues this week. 

Shree Paradkar writes about discrimination and identity.  You can follow her @shreeparadkar