OK I need to confirm this - Page 3

Originally posted by: NoviceWriter

Aree humare forum wale sab expert hain facts dissect krne mein… there is no need for a legal expert in particular 😆

But its true that you cant take a murder case back. These are serious offences and are considered crime against the society and state. So its not just related to the complainant and hence he cannot withdraw the case. The state will continue the case even if the complainant does not want to move ahead with the case.

Courts do have the power to quash proceedings on their own but they wont do it for such heinous and serious crimes.

This is according to my limited knowledge😅(zyada bhrosa mat krna mujhpe. Main all nighter maarke exams pass krne walon mein se thi🤣)

That's what they're worth, God forgive me)

Originally posted by: TheCoolDocSid

My legal thoughts usually get blended in terms of medical conditions and us procedurals😆

We will have to get legal advice here.. I will tag our forum ka legal expert here🤗 she will possibly unpack it for us!

Currently there is no hurt caused… Maybe that is accounted for?🤔

My apologies for the delay. I needed time to gather my thoughts and facts. Since an analysis of all the villainous acts will be long,I am dividing this into multiple posts based on the villains and their acts with ref to the IPC & CrPC. The basic elements of a crime are Intention and Action. Action should be such that it is punishable by law and it should have caused some injury (to body , mind, reputation or property).

Intention will be different from motive as motive deals with reason (why) but intention is just intent.

The two people accused with the most serious offences in the series are Shashi and Mahendra Sood- for 1) Murder of VK, 2) Attempt to murder of RK.

These are offences against the State. Hence, they are non compoundable and the complaint cannot be taken back by the complainant as per his will. Once the FIR is lodged, the case can be closed only after following proper procedure outlined in Crpc. This is a non bailable offence too, hence in order to get bail in such cases, an accused would require very strong reasons.

This makes me think of Ram bailing out MS on KC day. Obviously he could not have taken the complaint back at his will . So the only alternative is that he applied for bail. And with his connections got it sanctioned too.

It can be concluded that

1. Attempt to Murder of RK by prawns case is still open and investigations are on.

2. Currently MS is out on bail.

3. While out on bail, he has made another attempt on the life of RK (a very good reason for his bail to be cancelled and him being taken back into custody)

Also, this will pave the way for the VK murder case to be brought out in the open.

Priya:

Harbouring Offender (212)- whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person who he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment.

The important thing along with action is intent as I have described in my previous post. So my understanding is that Priya’s intention behind concealing the fact was never to protect MS from legal punishment. In order to make her guilty it has to be proved in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that she kept quiet to protect MS.

Please the above is not conclusive. If anyone else comes up with more ideas, offences or loopholes, i will be happy to discuss.

Sid-Shubhu-Anjali-Neeraj-Maitri-Mamaji-Mamiji ( will speakon Vedika and Nandini in the next post)

Falsely implicating Akki in an assault and harassment case. –found it a bit difficult to categorise under a particular offence. It will probably be a combination of many – like fabrication of false evidence with the intention to procure conviction for Akki, fraud, defamation etc.(as the whole incident did put a dent to Akki’s reputation)

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Hence, all of the names mentioned above will be a part of this. Also, all of them can also be charged against abetment i guess.

Nandini and Vedika

The Akki case has been discussed above. In addition to that they can be safely accused of the following:

1. Extortion/Criminal intimidation/Threat- When they blackmailed Akki and forced him to give Rs 50000.

2. Theft- of the precious maa ka kangan. It was dishonestly taken out of Ram’s possession without his consent with the intention to cause him harm (mami is an accomplice in this)

3. Forgery-

Even though Nandini is clever and directly no action can be traced to her (everything was always done through Vedika ) still as mentioned in the previous post a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then each of such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Conclusion: if ever their kaands get admitted in a court of law, I am sure that they will be tagged as habitual offenders.

But for everyone to be termed a criminal it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that they are so. Innocent until proven guilty is the principle we follow.

Originally posted by: Shivpriya6

Priya:

Harbouring Offender (212)- whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person who he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment.

The important thing along with action is intent as I have described in my previous post. So my understanding is that Priya’s intention behind concealing the fact was never to protect MS from legal punishment. In order to make her guilty it has to be proved in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that she kept quiet to protect MS.

Please the above is not conclusive. If anyone else comes up with more ideas, offences or loopholes, i will be happy to discuss.

Thank u so much for all your detailed analysis !! 😍 ( Bohot maza aya padke )

Are you a lawyer by profession ???

I just have a doubt , what about Priya not telling the truth to police when they came to KM and specifically asked her ??

You mean it has to be proved that the reason behind her silence is the intention to protect MS, which is kind of not possible as she only complained for the prawn case right ? 😂

I badly want a police Priya encounter and want to see what reason she is gonna give for hiding this !!

Originally posted by: vaidharbhi95

Thank u so much for all your detailed analysis !! 😍 ( Bohot maza aya padke )

Are you a lawyer by profession ???

I just have a doubt , what about Priya not telling the truth to police when they came to KM and specifically asked her ??

You mean it has to be proved that the reason behind her silence is the intention to protect MS, which is kind of not possible as she only complained for the prawn case right ? 😂

I badly want a police Priya encounter and want to see what reason she is gonna give for hiding this !!

Thank you so much :). Yes, though I studied law , I now work in finance (hence, i need time to refer to my textbooks :))

About Priya not telling the truth to the police - every offence needs to have two elements Actus reus (Action) and Mens Rea (Intention). My understanding is that it is her prerogative what she wants to say. If she has concealed a certain fact, her intention behind this act needs to be ascertained ( which is actually very difficult. You very rightly pointed out that she is the complainant in the prawns case. so if that is taken into consideration, her intentions to conceal MS involvement cannot be viewed as her wanting to protect MS. And it was also shown she wanted a better proof before she opened her mouth. so it is clear that she wants him to be punished. Hence, the conditions laid out in section 212 are not fulfilled) Also, any statement made to the police is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. But statements made before a magistrate or in court are taken as evidence. I see Priya as a witness in this case. So it is more important for her to speak the truth under oath in court. Witnesses can turn hostile too. But a separate complaint needs to be made to try hostile witnesses i guess.

Yes, this is ITV. Any thing can happen , even a Priya and Police encounter. Then @cooldocsid and I would be scratching our heads for loopholes in the legal system to come up with logic for that;)

One side Hum itnaa soch rahe hain,…. And other side when the episode airs, it feels like some brain cells are getting injured 🤣