Blogumulus by Roy Tanck and Amanda Fazani


Some other language?

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Deciding What is right and what is wrong.!!

Written by: ketaki Joshi.
A few days ago Tejas, a very dear friend of mine came up with this amazing topic and its so interesting and long, that we have decided to converse & discuss this topic in question through this medium, so here it is. A conversational blog! read->think->act.


Let's start with the actual thought.
Here is something I always thought (a very foggy thought, indeed) & needed someone with the 'expertise' to clear it. it is about lawyers.
So, lemme shoot.
In a court (especially a criminal one)there are 2 sides. When everything is said and done and finally when the justice is served, one side is declared the winner/truthful/right/.!

My question starts here.

1) If one side (lawyer) is thought of as true, does this make the other one fasle/untruthful/less true?

2) Is there a concept of "more truth"? something like- lawyer A has points that are more true than the B fella?

3) Moreover, the witnesses from the 'losing team', are they lying? telling the half truth which is somehow 'lesser' than the other? does this not go against their "mein jo kuch kahunga-sach kahunga, sach ke siva kuch nahi kahunga"?


Hey Tejas.! Thank you.! The questions that you have raised are very thought provoking indeed and has proved to be a good mind exercise for me.

Well.., Pick any Court and you will realize that every single Judicial System that you pick works MECHANICALLY. Nothing works on emotions. Thousands of people might have witnessed a murder, but the murderer will surely be set free, if none of the witnesses come up and speak the truth in the Court Of Law. If there aren’t ample evidences, mere knowing of the truth becomes inconspicuous.

What Courts emphasize on, are evidences. What else can a Court Of Law do?? A judge is expected not to be partial, not to have a personal say. The laws are above the judges and so the judges are ought to follow the procedures even if they personally disagree with it. Of course interpretation of law is essential. However no gut feelings or intuitions are allowed. What is admissible in a Court Of Law is an evidence, and nothing but an evidence. Now everybody knows how much of these evidences are really truthful. But to think of it, it is a very thoughtful procedure and probably the only procedure which is slightly near to giving justice. To some extent it eliminates the chances of the judges being biased. A judge can be biased but while passing a judgment his will and fancies will not be entertained. They are puppets, merely a medium of conveying what’s in store for the people around.

Long back, a Sessions Judge had seen a murder happening right before his eyes. It was almost like a nightmare and forgetting the murderer’s face was next to impossible for him. He knew some day the case would come in his Court Of Law and so decided to keep mum and deal with the murderer at the right time. Later the case did really come before him. Very strong evidences were brought against the accused. Such good and strong evidences, that the Judge had no choice but to hang him which is done in the rarest of rare cases.

The judge was hesitant and upset. There was no way in which he could have reduced the punishment. Frustrated he called for the accused to come and meet him, informally.
“I am innocent Sir and I don’t know how to prove it. Please believe me.” Plainly the judge replied, “I believe you, and you need to believe me that even I am merely doing my duty. I have evidences here which clearly show you are the murderer. Just a small little secret that I would like to share with you, I have seen the murder and I know as a matter of fact that you are in no way related to this case.

Now that I can’t help you in any way and that your death is inevitable, I want you to make one last single confession before your death. Have you ever done anything in your past, you think for which you are paying now? With tears rolling down his cheeks he opened up, “I had killed two people for which I was accused long back. But I had managed to get away with it as I was financially strong then. But here I don’t even know the person who has been killed.” I guess I am paying for my past deeds. There is no running away from it and I shall face it.”
Now weren’t the evidences fabricated? Wasn’t he innocent and completely right in this case? But still the punishment he got has been pending for ages and was not wrong. He confessed and that’s the sole reason this case goes justified. Not all confess...

At times it becomes very hard to say who is right and who is wrong.

One gets what one deserves. There are a lot of things happening around us that we fail to understand but they are correct in their own ways which we lack the vision to see. Such things are beyond our control. None of the Judicial Systems in the world are working Fool proof. There is a lot of corruption, a lot a politics, a lot of mistakes, but at the end the God is there to take care that injustice is never done.

Dealing with the 2nd point that u have raised, I guess all humans are at par and ur question stretched my mind to make me think that yes probably there is a concept of "more truth" something like- God has points that are more accurate than all, the lawyers, witnesses, judges and also the laws.
As for those who are really lying, aren't they digging holes for themselves, because God’s watching them too and they’ll be paying for it sooner or later..
Please Note: These thoughts are expressed by Ketaki Joshi, a resident of India, who loves blogging. Have a good day.! Registered & Protected


  1. Interesting Discussion! And I guess the concept of 'more truth' is just a shade of grey! there is no Black and white.

  2. :) Thanks Aakash.!


Always stay focused.. :)