We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
“This verdict may surprise many people, but it did not surprise me. As early as 2020, I began to feel that something was not right. Even the prosecution noticed changes in the way the case was being handled, especially when it came to one particular accused,” Bhavana wrote.
While the case was assigned to judge Honey after Bhavana herself petitioned for a woman judge to hear the case, the years that followed had seen the prosecution and the survivor allegedly face hostility from the court itself.
In a statement published on December 14, Bhavana listed six reasons for why she lost faith in the trial court. She wrote:
* “My fundamental rights were not protected. The most important evidence in this case - the memory card was found to have been illegally accessedthree times while it was in court custody.”
* “Two public prosecutors resigned from this case, stating clearly that the court environment had become hostile towards the prosecution. Both of them personally told me not to expect justice from this court, as they felt it was biased.”
* “I repeatedly requested a proper investigation into the tampering of the memory card. However, the investigation report was never given to me, until I kept asking again and again.”
* “While I was fighting for a fair trial, the accused filed a petition requesting that this same judge continue to hear the case. This raised even more serious doubts in my mind.”
* “l even wrote letters to the Honourable President of India and the Honourable Prime Minister of India, expressing my concerns and seeking intervention!”
* “I requested the court to conduct the proceedings in an open court, so that the public and media could be present and see for themselves what was happening. This request was denied.”
She further said, “Over the years, I approached the High Court and the Supreme Court multiple times, clearly stating that I did not trust this court. Every request to move this case away from the same judge was dismissed. At the end of the day, this verdict made me realise how strongly human judgement can shape decisions. I also know that every court does not function in the same way.”
https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/six-reasons-why-i-lost-faith-in-trial-court-bhavana-reacts-to-actor-assault-verdict