| Originally posted by :Prabhakar | ||
| " |
In law, hypothetical assumptions in the place of facts are not allowed. You go on assuming one fact and on that weave a web of assumptions and try to draw a legal conclusion, but that is not permissible and Indian judges do not do that and won't allow any one to do that. The facts have to be proved in the method prescribed by law and in the case of Luckmatters, the facts can be proved in accordance with law without much difficulty. It is not as difficult task as projected by other contributories of the post. Barbaric comments are norm in s*xual offence cases. And the only and shameful method, the defence advocate always applies is to throw mud on the character of the prosecutrix / complainant for coming to court and seeking the justice. We have seen and will see in the open courts that a rape victim is humiliated in hundred and thousand ways by putting such relentless and shameful questions by the defence advocate in the name of protecting the accused. Hemant Aggarwal is no exception. We see them in hundreds in the courts every day defending the accused, but we will not be cowed down by them or by their slanders. |
" |
Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir enough of blah blah blah.
You have big comprehension problem. Please get that right first. Where is the case when Mrs.Luckmatters herself is not ready to accept in the court that the pictures were taken by Mr.Gentleman? How do you build the case? by ranting blah blah blah? Who is talking about hypothetical scenarios here? You repeatedly saying the same thing again and again in different words ' The facts have to be proved in the method prescribed by law and in the case of Luckmatters, the facts can be proved in accordance with law without much difficulty.' . What is the fact here? There are two parts in the fact theory here. 1. Mrs.Luckmatters has consented Mr.Gentleman to take her nude videos and pictures 2. Mr.Gentleman has used those objects to defame Mrs.Luckmatters in front of her family. Now tell me, if Mrs.Luckmatters do not want to accept or do not want to stand by the fact no. 1 in the court, where does fact no.2 stands? Let me put my point very clear here. It is not a hypothetical scenario. That is what Mrs.Luckmatters has mentioned in here first post. She wants to hide behind the bushes and shoot Mr.Gentleman with the gun callled court of law!!!! if she wants to hide she can not prove him guilty. If she wants to come out then she 'may' prove him guilty, but she will certainly be losing her relation with her husband and family. So Mr.Gentleman, whether he is real culprit or not, is more than safe in either case.
Anyway I am out of this topic. I tried to help out Mrs.Luckmatters by arguing the case against her so that she gets better solution but unfortunately most of the times it is resulting only in the rantings here without any substance. Just like kid and cow essay story. 
