So Akshara will move to court against Abhimanyu.
Let's talk about points favouring Akshara's case.
If one observes Abhimanyu with a magnifying glass he's not himself.
Sudden mood swings, lost feeling, defeated expressions coupled with a suicide attempt after getting intoxicated etc etc.
Ideally Abhimanyu should have been left alone.
Yes, agenda, motive, purpose leads to crime done with a particular intent.
However Abhinav was alive at the time of admission, post surgery also regained consciousness. Aarohi brought a cardiac surgeon in place of Abhimanyu. Good
Let's talk about the loopholes
Why Abhinav's statement wasn't recorded by the police. Hospital did not call the authorities neither did Akshara.
Her current profession demands certain rational approach and thinking.
What kind of argument will she put forth in front of the judge when a copy of the patient's testimony has to be submitted.
Parth Birla, hospital in charge has enough of evidence or proof to prove Goenka's hostile behaviour. He can point out fingers that Akshara being a lawyer initiated conversation with a extremely critical patient, hugged him, prevented hospital staff to do their jobs.
Dr Aarohi Goenka did not object rather allowed her sister to be in the ward for a long time.
How will Ak defend her case? are the writers going to argue on the basis of sole eye witness Manish Goenka and ignore what took place in the hospital.
Is Akshara going to harp about Abhimanyu's motive only.
59