Email
Print
ShareYet, as far as the media and the police are concerned, the case against Ahuja is open and shut, the evidence has been gathered, he has confessed his guilt, the "rape victim" has given her testimony and the verdict has been reached. All that remains is to decide on the length of the sentence.
The media and the police aren't the only ones to have reached this conclusion. The chairperson of the National Commission of Women, Girija Vyas, travelled from Delhi with her team, took one look at the maid's medical report, and pronounced her verdict.
The chief minister of Maharashtra, Ashok Chavan, who took six months to appoint a head for the Anti Terrorism Squad, took six minutes to echo Vyas' verdict.
On the other hand there is Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist who killed hundreds of people in cold blood at CST station and Cama Hospital. There are innumerable witnesses to his crime, he has been identified by many, he is clearly seen on CCTV footage and in still photographs and not even he is disputing his guilt. Yet the state found him a lawyer to defend him and a full-scale trial is in progress to establish that guilt in a court of law.
What's going on? In any civilised society which respects the rule of law, the fundamental principle that is followed is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Shiney Ahuja may be guilty beyond doubt of rape, but that needs to be proved in a court of law, not in a police lock up or on TV screens or in newspaper headlines.
We should ask ourselves a few questions first. Like: Who informed the media about the case? From all accounts, the Ahuja's maid confided in the neighbour's maid, who in turn took the girl to the neighbours for help.
These neighbours took the maid to the police station to lodge a complaint. You can be sure that the maids didn't have access to the media. You can be equally sure that the neighbours -- middle-class people -- didn't have a hotline to television channels either. Which leaves us with just one suspect for starting the media frenzy. Yes, the cops.
Shouldn't the accused have a lawyer? From reports it is clear that Shiney Ahuja was taken from his house to the police station for questioning. Some reports say handcuffs were used (not a normal procedure) but what is beyond dispute is that Ahuja was questioned for hours without getting the help of legal assistance.
It is said that the actor was nonchalant at first, broke down later, confessed to the deed, begged forgiveness of everyone and so on.
Who brought this to the attention of the world? The media. Who brought it to the notice of the media? Reporters weren't present during the questioning, so they would have no way of knowing. No way, unless they were informed. Who would do the informing?
Surely not Shiney Ahuja. Which leaves us with just one suspect. Yes, the cops.
By now we all know that a confession obtained from a suspect in a police station with only the police present, is not admissible in a court. So if Shiney Ahuja did confess, he can always retract his statement and say it was obtained under duress. So, what possible purpose was served by obtaining, then publishing his "confession"?
The more you think of it, the more you are sure that the Shiney Ahuja case needs the chief minister's intervention. But not Ashok Chavan's kind of gratuitous intervention. What needs to be probed is the unholy nexus between the police and the media which crucifies a suspect well before he is brought to trial. In a case where the man is innocent, do you think he will ever get the mud and the tar off his face?
The writer is a commentator on social affairs
