Barrister Babu Episode Discussion Thread - Page 35

Originally posted by: Ashley_m

Actually there were provocation laws tab, so that, combined with self defense and accident is actually enough for acquittal...

Not exactly, He still killed the man plus there were eye witnesses to him shooting CC and CC falling off the bridge. He cannot be acquitted so easily just because of provocation law, it can only lesser his sentence from death to life imprisonment.

Originally posted by: .Rinnie.

Not exactly, He still killed the man plus there were eye witnesses to him shooting CC and CC falling off the bridge. He cannot be acquitted so easily just because of provocation law, it can only lesser his sentence from death to life imprisonment.

Not provocation alone... It was provocation plus accident... Because it definitely wasn't pre-mediated, and that is something that all eye-witness testimony can be twisted into...

Originally posted by: Ashley_m

Not provocation alone... It was provocation plus accident... Because it definitely wasn't pre-mediated, and that is something that all eye-witness testimony can be twisted into...

Trilochan and Kalindi both saw that they both were holding the gun tightly and CC was pointing him right? Kya police aur judge ko ye nahi pata?! So logically they can assume that CC tried to shoot Ani but Ani tried to take gun from him which led to the mistakenly killing. Another thing, CC brought the gun not Ani, do they all know this fact?!

Par dekhna itna zyada assume karneke baad bhi hamara popat nishchit hai 🙄😒

Originally posted by: Ashley_m

Not provocation alone... It was provocation plus accident... Because it definitely wasn't pre-mediated, and that is something that all eye-witness testimony can be twisted into...

How can it be proved as an accident when ARC threatened to kill CC infront of everyone couple of hours before the actual incident?

He was seen chasing CC before the killing happened, even if it was provocation and self defense, it does not rule out the intent to kill and that intent being carried out. He killed a man which is still a crime because a normal man cannot get away scott free for killing someone, even if the person he murdered was a criminal that deserved to be punished.

Waise, itna sab soch nahi dalenge show wale iss cheez me.. this show isn't Adalat or a court room drama that they will look so deep into the technicalities of it. I have yet to hear them properly quote any law 😆 They will try to keep it as simple as possible because it can get very complex and they don't have people with the expertise on this subject to weave an entire dialogue exchange on this.

The only way to acquit ARC is to get CC to court now.

Originally posted by: .Rinnie.

How can it be proved as an accident when ARC threatened to kill CC infront of everyone couple of hours before the actual incident?

He was seen chasing CC before the killing happened, even if it was provocation and self defense, it does not rule out the intent to kill and that intent being carried out. He killed a man which is still a crime because a normal man cannot get away scott free for killing someone, even if the person he murdered was a criminal that deserved to be punished.

Waise, itna sab soch nahi dalenge show wale iss cheez me.. this show isn't Adalat or a court room drama that they will look so deep into the technicalities of it. I have yet to hear them properly quote any law 😆 They will try to keep it as simple as possible because it can get very complex and they don't have people with the expertise on this subject to weave an entire dialogue exchange on this.

The only way to acquit ARC is to get CC to court now.

Again, I'm not that well versed in the subject so better to ask someone who is studying law:

Shirin, what do you think?

Originally posted by: .Rinnie.

How can it be proved as an accident when ARC threatened to kill CC infront of everyone couple of hours before the actual incident?

He was seen chasing CC before the killing happened, even if it was provocation and self defense, it does not rule out the intent to kill and that intent being carried out. He killed a man which is still a crime because a normal man cannot get away scott free for killing someone, even if the person he murdered was a criminal that deserved to be punished.

Waise, itna sab soch nahi dalenge show wale iss cheez me.. this show isn't Adalat or a court room drama that they will look so deep into the technicalities of it. I have yet to hear them properly quote any law 😆 They will try to keep it as simple as possible because it can get very complex and they don't have people with the expertise on this subject to weave an entire dialogue exchange on this.

The only way to acquit ARC is to get CC to court now.

Exactly, there was no intent to kill, and that is exactly what Bon needs to prove in court, which is what is the plan IG, she has to somehow prove that CC pointed the gun first, then Ani was trying to get it away when it got fired in the brawl, this particular instance actually had eyewitnesses, including Bon herself.

Originally posted by: .Rinnie.

Again, I'm not that well versed in the subject so better to ask someone who is studying law:

Shirin, what do you think?

She needs to prove that cc is alive or need to prove that it was self defence which can be proved if someone had seen cc take out the gun first. If there is a witness to cc taking the gun out first then arc will be released . She needs to focus on how the gun came into the scene instead of tapur's story because it will make the situation worse.

In law there are two things that constitute a crime -actus rea (guilty action) and mens rea(guilty mind). A car accident for example has only actus rea as the intention was not there but a planned homicide constitute both. By telling tapur's truth she is essentially giving the motive and that will help subhodh to literally prove that he planned on killing him.

This is what the real life situation is baki ka show mein toh pta nh.

Originally posted by: shirin04

well unless and until she can prove that ARC did not intend to kill him or the fact that cc is alive, there is no way arc will he let go. Whether cc was a rap*ist or murderer is of no importance in fact it might worsen his case because it would give him more of an intention to kill him since he did that. So in a way by telling tupur's truth they are helping subhodh because till now arc did not have an motive to kill him but now he does.

She needs to prove that cc is alive or need to prove that it was self defence which can be proved if someone had seen cc take out the gun first. If there is a witness to cc taking the gun out first then arc will be released . She needs to focus on how the gun came into the scene instead of tapur's story because it will make the situation worse.

In law there are two things that constitute a crime -actus rea (guilty action) and mens rea(guilty mind). A car accident for example has only actus rea as the intention was not there but a planned homicide constitute both. By telling tapur's truth she is essentially giving the motive and that will help subhodh to literally prove that he planned on killing him.

This is what the real life situation is baki ka show mein toh pta nh.

Originally posted by: Ashley_m

Exactly, there was no intent to kill, and that is exactly what Bon needs to prove in court, which is what is the plan IG, she has to somehow prove that CC pointed the gun first, then Ani was trying to get it away when it got fired in the brawl, this particular instance actually had eyewitnesses, including Bon herself.

I was saying the intent to kill was there and witnessed by many.... because honestly ARC would have killed him😆 Gun ka laya CC ne but at the end, there is only one dead man.

Whatever CC did was unforgivable, Ani would have killed him if provoked more isliye I said rape case + provocation + self defense won't be enough to let him off the hook and I don't think Bon can manipulate the witnesses in such a way either, this isn't a hard core court drama for that.

They need CC to be bought in front of the court to let Ani go.

Originally posted by: shirin04

behen i replied by perspective

I want to ask something, in the rage Ani said that he will kill CC but who actually brought the gun? CC! And both Trilochan and Kalindi witnessed this, right? Ani just said but the action was started by CC, isn't there a difference between saying and doing? I was having a verbal fight with my friend and she angrily said that she will kill me but she didn't and criminals never say that they will kill but they do kill, why will the culprit openly say that he will kill someone? Don't the police and judge know this?

Aur isi tarah hamara popat hota hai 😊so dekhte hai ye makers karte kiya hai......