Salman Khan’s Trial outcome – Why does it really matter?

A trial that lasted around 13 years – started around 2002 with a charge of “Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder” – ending with a ‘Bollywoodish’ kind of climax is like a movie of the Khan himself. Initially, the hero is accused of a murder that he may have or may not have committed. There is a flashback of what happened before and during the incident. Then, it moves to the courtroom with lawyers introducing one alibi after another to prove what happened. There are some killings too behind the scenes from desperate people trying to save themselves. But, as it turns out the court pronounces him to be guilty. Everybody thinks his life is done and dusted. The case is then moved to a higher court where that judgment is overturned because of lack of enough evidence to allow the hero walk free. If anybody wants to make a movie around this it would be mouthwatering “paisa-wasool” stuff and may be another 100-crore blockbuster.

But, what if Salman Khan did find himself in the driver seat after being heavily drunk on that night before mauling people sleeping on the pavements? What if he simply found loopholes in the law to escape unscathed? What if this courtroom drama a mere eye-wash to make to the headlines of, as thirsty as ever, media and to fill the appetite of, entertainment seeking, public? Who drove the car if Salman Khan didn’t? I don’t think we never will be able to find answers for those questions. But does it really matter? All I think would anyway matter is what did he do to those innocent people who inadvertently came under his car on that fateful night whether he drove it or not. Even if he says he did not do it; couldn’t he at the least do enough to those people to make their lives better?

He might be a larger-than-life figure, a man with golden heart – as he often so evidently showcases himself to be in the movies, helpful person to many in the industry, an evolved person from his young brattish nature to being the ambassador of “Being Human” foundation. But what good does all these tantamount to if he could not just do one simple thing; that is taking care of them. Above mentioned sobriquets simply seem to be a mask to hide his otherwise inherent violent and unstable nature, as is evident throughout his trouble seeking history in real life.

Besides, the latest court verdict is the true reflection of the fragile functioning of the judiciary system in our country even after all these years. One court gives punishment and the other court overturns it. If one says, “you have done wrong” then the other immediately contradicts “you are free to go”. How is it that one court finds all the possible evidence to pronounce it as murder and the other court could not find the same evidence substantial enough? It simply goes on to boost the confidence of wrongdoers that they can get away no matter how serious their deed could be. As long as power and money go hand-in-hand, all transgressions how much ever violent in nature are clean-slated even if it takes a little longer time.

This is sheer injustice to all those innocent people who most often than not, get mowed down not by these vehicles of rich but by the law itself because of its own fallacies.

Share on Pinterest
There are no images.

Post Author: Kiran Bandiatmakur

Kiran is a software professional and a Freelance Blogger

Leave a Reply