Dear "KnowTheTruth"

Going by your alias, I would presume that you value truth. The real truth and nothing else. Well, according to you, what is it? Are you aware of the entire facts and circumstances of the case? Are you aware of what is available on the case record before the Courts (the trial courts and the High Court)? I would think, NO. Well then what are you exactly aware of? And what do you base your information/knowledge on? On what you have learnt from the media over the years! Now comes the question as to whether the reporting by the media is reliable or does it in any manner portray the full and correct picture? I need not answer that question. I leave it to your wisdom (although it may be a risky thing to do :p ). So, what you think you know as 'truth', is what has been gathered from the news reports that you have read over the years and from what people have generally discussed/opined about the issue (without having the actual material with them). Merely because something has been repeated over the years, does not mean that its true. And even if its true, it needs to be proved before the Court for the Court to accept it as such and base its decision on accordingly. Basing a decision merely on a popular belief is hazardous. A court of law cannot do that. It has to carefully analyse the evidence before it. The Appellate court has to analyse whether the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record.

Now coming to a portion of your post --- "I recall that constable Patil gave the same statement even on his deathbed, and the session court judge observed that statement of a dying person has to be considered credible." .... Can you please tell us where in the session court's judgment do you find this? Before that, let me ask you if you have even read the sessions court judgment? It doesnt look like you have.

Coming to another portion of your post - "Automobile experts from the car manufacturer have provided report that the tyre burst due to impact. Why should judge base his statement on what Patil said (in the context of tyre burst)." .... From where do you get that "automobile experts from the car manufacturer have provided report"?.. If you read the sessions court order, you will realise that a RTO officer was the 'expert witness'. Not a technician from the manufacturer. Be that as it may, it is settled law that even an expert's evidence is not conclusive. Court has to weigh it according to other corroborative evidence. Thats law of evidence, which I presume you are aware of. And as regards, why or whether the HC judge has even based his 'statement' (you meant 'finding', i take it) on basis of what patil said, you will have to wait for the HC judgment. :)

Coming to yet another portion of your post - "So whose statement does the hon.judge consider credible? that of his driver who woke up after 13 years to realize that he was driving? Or his absconding friend who never gave a statement ?" ..... What is this whole misconception of 13 years?? Do you know when the defense gets the chance to lead evidence? I assume you dont (and so is the case with the layman media).. Well here is the thing. The Defense gets to lead evidence after the prosecution has finished leading its evidence and after the statement of the accused is recorded under Section 313 of CRPC. I am assuming that you must have atleast read the stages in a criminal trial as set out in the CRPC (that assumption is based on the presumption that you are a lawyer. If you rebut it, my whole post is useless :D ). Well, that stage where Defense had to lead evidence came after 13 years! It is not that the defense witness woke up after 13 years! He was always there. And I believe he gave a statement to the police in the very beginning. Prosecution chose not to examine him (for obvious reasons). Did we then expect him to give a statement before the media (which he could have during these 13 years, no doubt) even when the trial was sub-judice? And how appropriate would that be? I leave it to your wisdom. (again a risky thing to do? :D ..I hope not.)

Coming to yet another portion of your post (this will be the last, I promise) - "Do judges of higher courts have a lower IQ (or ethics?)"..... well, my friend.. you and me are too unqualified and incompetent to even raise a question like that. So, please have some respect! Judges of the HC are clinically and professional trained and experienced in appreciating evidence. They are in the legal profession longer than you and I have lived. :D And this particular judge is dictating his entire judgment continuously for more than 3 (yes, three) days in a packed open courtroom. This is unprecedented in the history of the high court. It speaks volumes about the courage and confidence displayed amidst the media and public pressure.

Courts have to appreciate the evidence before it and not go as per the popular sentiment (and rightly so!). So, before you jump to any misconceived conclusion, I would urge you to get your facts in place. Nevertheless, have some respect! And please consider the impact that scathing comments like yours are likely to have on the minds of young inexperienced lawyers or for that matter on the general layman.

Thanks

Dear Impartial observer:

Thanks for your very detailed cross examination of my post and bringing up some pertinant points. You seem to be really working overtime to prove the megastar innocent, and the judgement stupendous. I do appreciate your commitment.
..my two cents:
India has the world’s deadliest roads with over 130000 accident deaths each year. Drunken driving has been responsible for over 70% of all fatal road accidents. (don't ask if i get this from media or google).
The people affected are often not the ones who drive drunk, but innocent pedestrians or other drivers/passengers.

You seem to be very concerned about the influence my post could have on common people and young lawyers. What concern do you have for victims of fans who could imitate brand ambassadors (such as the accused), and end up mowing down innocents?

What concern do you have for the constable who did his duty, without any support from his department. You don't seem to care whether he even got witness protection, something that he was eligible for while testifying against a bigshot. (well, the judge didn't care either)
There is no support from an quarter when the lowest rung official in the police dept tries to do his duty, and we (society) expect the police to do a good job.

And lastly, what message do you want to send out to the society? That with enough money you can hire expensive lawyers to twist the story, the witnesses, the law enforcement, legal machinery and lead a pretty normal life for decades until all the people associated with the case either retire or die.

And yes, I do value the truth. And what we see is gross travesty of justice caused by fact twisting.

I do hope that your family and the judge family are safe on roads where such drunken trolls drive with the patronage of out legal system.