Barnala has been honorably acquitted. The maid confessed that she’d lied.. Prima facie it was a politically machinated gimmick.

@kaveetaa – Thanks for the clarification!

Kaveetaakaul, I am sorry. You appear to be factually wrong. Barnala has NOT been honourably acquitted so far, as far as I understand. The next date for hearing in the court has been fixed for January 29, 2007. Please go through the news item at TimesofIndia for latest details of this case.

Witness turning hostile does not mean that Barnala has been honourably acquitted. When you have power and money ( father is Governor of Tamil Nadu ), you can always make a witness ( and that too a poor lady ) hostile. In case, you have some proof of what you say, please give the web link.

Regards.

that is right he has not been acquitted and might not get as the judge is said to be very tough one

Negative vote? – Sumthin goin on @ indianpad

Ashok Dhamija, if the court has not passed a verdict for or against Barnala and especially in the light of the fact that the witness has “retracted her statement“:http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=2&id=167770&usrsess=1

I find it unfair to cast aspersions on his character. Are you privy to substantiated proof of his culpability? If so, please share with us.

If a witness can be ‘turned hostile’ as you allege, then she could also have been bought over in the first place, to initiate rape charges, which often happens, and also seems apparent from the details of the case. The wife of Mr. Barnala had brought her to the hospital and admittied her for injuries.

The example of Abu Salem fighting elections is more worthy of condemnation.

However, you are free to express your opinion just as I reserve my right to disagree on a matter of principle, over an unjust condemnation.

Regards

Kaveetaakaul, I respect your right to have a different opinion. I am nobody to pass a judgment. I have merely expressed my opinion. It is for the court to decide. But, the fact remains that as of today, Barnala is charged of the offence of rape and is not acquitted till date. So, at least there is a doubt about his conduct; question of proof will be decided by court later on. My objection was to a person charged of a rape offence being made a candidate by a recognized political party. If you are comfortable with such situation, well – you are welcome.

Ashok Dhamija I was uncomfortable with a trial by non participants where he has been tried, accused and condemned, his reputation tarnished, where merely ‘doubt of his conduct’is an adjunct to denying him rights, without granting him ‘the benefit of doubt’ instead.

Till proven guilty, it is not ethically right to incriminate. On a public platform such as blogging I would rather tread on eggshells, look for substantive proof, beyond any shadow of doubt before casting an opinion..

However, if you are comfortable resorting to this, you are welcome.

Kaveetaakaul, I agree with you that a person is supposed to be innocent till proved guilty. But, I think this principle should be applicable more in private domain, i.e., if Barnala wants to relax at home – let him have the satisfaction of being innocent till proved guilty. But, in the public domain? No way. I, for one, would not be comfortable with a rape accused ( even if not proved guilty till date ) sitting in my state legislature making laws for me.

A person who is accused of raping his own maid servant, cannot be my law-maker, till he is proved innocent. Tomorrow, if he becomes MLA, will the ladies have the confidence to go and meet him? When we have so many clean choices available for being elected as MLA, why elect a person under doubt? What if the charge is proved tomorrow? Who will compensate the public for that? How Shibu Soren continued MP and Minister for several years because he was just charged and not proved guilty?

In public life, the person concerned should have a fully clean image and there should not be even the slightest doubt about his conduct. Private life is of course different and may be governed by the principle mentioned by you. Anyway, this is my last comment; I have enjoyed the fruitful debate.

Let’s agree to disagree.

(sigh).. I tried

My objection was to a person charged of a rape offence being made a candidate by a recognized political party. – If we were to remove candidates that have been ‘accused’ of a wrongdoing then who will compete in the elections

Ha ha ..true Avaksi.

There is a world of difference between being ‘accused’ and being ‘charged’. One who has been presently merely ‘accused’ of rape cannot be perceived as a ‘Rapist’, as if it was a foregone conclusion..the tone of the article betrayed this emotion.It did not seem fair, so I objected. Nothing personal and no offense meant.