Posted:
First of all, KB folks need to calm down. There is not enough conclusive evidence to prove Shiv guilty.
It is a universal law -- in India as elsewhere -- that a person is innocent until proven guilty. it is also a universal law that the burden of proving a person guilty is on the prosecution.
Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act :
"Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. 'Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist'. Illustration (a) says - 'A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime'.
In other words, if Rasika wants the court to punish Shiv for the crime she says he has committed, she/ her lawyer must prove that he has committed the crime.
And it is not enough if the evidence is vague. In a criminal case the evidence adduced must be of the highest standard. And I quote from legal texts:
" The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy".
As anyone can see from Shiv's trial so far: there is a perfectly logical alternative explanation for every charge made by Rasika -- whether it is with regard to sexual harassment or abetment to suicide.
Shiv's staff saw Raskia in an embrace and looking dishevelled. Shiv has a logical explanation for it.
Rasika's charge that Narendra committed suicide is just her word. There is no eye witness account of when, where, why and how the immolation happened.
In other words: Shiv cannot be held guilty.
But if Shiv gets an acquittal simply because there is not enough evidence against him, there will still be a shadow of doubt as to his guilt.
So the family needs to get clinching evidence to prove his innocence -- not for legal reason but to uphold his character.
That is important but it is not a like there is a life and death situation as CVs are making out.
So if the family proceeds with a clear understanding of the law, they would be better able to think through what they should do.
Indian Idol 15
