What comes out of Appeals is a subject matter of time but the long standing argument that "Automobile in the hands of a drunken person" must be equated to a weapon gains weight. The judgement is also historical in the sense that it comes under the shadow of corrupting a witness by collusion of prosecution (Khan) and defense lawyers (Anand).
This judgement also gives a strong message to people who believe that with money and power they can buy any evidence or witness thereby the judgement. Just because you are in the capacity to hire the best legal support would not result in a favourable judgement.
Stronger parties have traditionally won litigation in civil matters, consider the case of Napster, where a startup .com was pitched against an organised money and power rich association. The same arguments are levied against YouTube, but winning case against YouTube will not be easy as it has the backing of a Giant (the partent company "Google").
But when the matters are criminal in nature, the things should be different, here the crime is against Society as a whole thus prosecutor is the State. Nonetheless, this was happening in criminal cases also, but thanks to Media attention now being rich and powerful will definately be a handicap for anyone facing charges. There are other noteable cases where media attention due to being a celebrety or a page3 socialite has landed people in greater trouble like that of Actor Salman Khan's "Hunting Case."
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें