Originally posted by: FantasyFan_8
Actually the clue of Dhruv 's innocence was in Maharaj ji's own hands. But I don't know why makers are not using it or maybe they will use it at last moment. The person who attacked Maharaj was injured by Maharaj. His sword would still have his blood. But Dhruv does not have any injury on his body.
That's known only to Maharaj and the viewers who saw the scene.
No one else saw or witnessed it. Even Dhruv himself doesn't know that the King landed a blow on his attacker.
The problem from T's point of view is that there are three damning evidences against Dhruv, all of which she witnessed with her own eyes.
1) She saw "Dhruv" walk towards the chamber (in the same dress)
2) Her own father named Dhruv as his killer in his dying moments (folks generally don't lie then)
3) Dhruv took the knife out of her father's body.
In the absence of any other information, it's tough to come to a conclusion other than the fact that Dhruv indeed did do it. And there's enough technical "motivation" (the revenge for his father part)
Yes, her heart may say no after hearing the Dhruv saved the Kingdom news, but in the 17th century, there's an equal chance that folks could've done both X and Y (case in example Rajpurohit- who practically orchestrated the whole Samrat plan, but was also willing to die when Vikramjit asked him to perform D-PSM marriage)
Edited by aekiel - 3 years ago