As we’ve all heard, Rajasthan high court announced the verdict on the black-buck poaching case of Salman Khan, and the verdict has been acknowledged with mixed reactions from the Indian society.
After 18 years of legal battle, the court, on Monday, acquitted Salman Khan in the poaching cases, and Salman Khan was reportedly not even present in court for the verdict. The final decision, which is in Khan’s favor came as a big relief for him and his fans, as Salman had appealed to the high court, challenging a lower court’s verdict that had sentenced him one and five years of imprisonment respectively in the two poaching cases.
Now, a lot of comments have come up regarding the verdict, and a number of these state that Salman Khan should have been pronounced guilty, and should be jailed. The question that comes to my mind is: why should anyone but the jury feel obliged to pass such a judgment? I am not in support of, or against this particular verdict, but would just like to point out, that any jury can only sentence an accused, if there is substantial evidence against the accused. Only if. No judge can sentence an accused unless proven so.
It isn’t wrong for the people of a country to root for justice, for karma. But for us to expect anything different than what the verdict is, is juvenile. Salman Khan, son of legendary writer Salim Khan, and one of the top actors in the country. The man carries a lot of clout, and he used it. It’s juvenile of us to expect anyone to be as self-righteous as Ned Stark in today’s world. It’s instinctual to avoid pain and seek pleasure. If you had a ‘get out of jail free’ card in a monopoly game, would you use it, or marinate in morality whilst sitting in jail? Real life isn’t a Monopoly game, but it works the same way.