Posted: 08 May 2015 at 2:46am | IP Logged
Originally posted by 9tanki
Originally posted by .Verity.
So what does everyone think about this case?
1. Justice served at last 13 years later?
2. But it took 13 years for the judge to give his verdict, why did the judge take so long? Did he hope for Salman to pay off the person that brought the charges on Salman, like witnesses, or Salman to make up an excuse it wasn't me driving and plead not guilty?
3. Being as the guy was homeless I'm assuming he had no-one to turn to, no family to stay on their sofa or floor whilst he got his life together, so who is mourning him? Can that be excusable that he wasn't an earning member of society? the homeless guy had no family so his life had little value? Or the homeless guy still had a value to society, if so what exactly?
Law system in India is a joke. If it takes 13 year to convict in lower court then how much more time will it take for the final verdict till it reaches supreme court. Sanjay dutt case was dragged for 20 years and then Supreme court gave verdict for 5 year jail of which 18 month he already spent in jail. Being celebrity or politician gives them flexibility to mold law as per their convenience.
Salman has been doing great charity work for last 5 year, and thats why he didnt get 10+ imprisonment verdict.
The person who died name is still not known but his Baigum sheikh was telling media she hasnt received any help.
Its good to see celebrity coming in support of Salman, I wished they had shown same support to the victim family.
These high profile case are highlighting to us that justice is taking a long time as it goes through the various lower and higher court system, But I'm sure even in the west which also has this system would have started proceedings then in 2002 (for Salman's case) but most definitely a verdict would have been reached by 2003, at the latest, in the lower court and if it was then appealed to a higher court final verdict in Supreme court would have been reached much earlier then what has happened here.
You know I highlighted that in the BBC article above that it seems the reason why he has this huge support from the community is because of his good deeds and charities, but when did it all start? Could it be it's a calculated thing he has done in order to show a reformation to his character and then get a reduced sentence? Now we hear on appeal to the high court the sentence is suspended completely so no jail time at all, it seems the delay in reaching a verdict has worked in his favour and I just wonder skeptically that perhaps the justice system which we all think was fair 2 days ago when the verdict was first given, but isn't, like they put the wool over the eyes of the watchers of this case.
I have assumed the victim had no family, as no media has covered anything about them at all right, so I assumed he had no-one (neither friends or family). He was homeless does that mean he was not even working, if that's the case what value did he have to anyone?