suni51 wrote:

I will keep this as record. I will use this thread as proof what I am trying to do. Thanks. The point related to conscience, is important for me

Conscience IS important, provided you have kept it alive inside you! Coming to your post, if a person has deliberately killed someone and made it look like an accident, it is clear that his conscience is dead and he has done so with coldblooded planning. There is no conscience in such a person. I take it, you are trying to bring someone to justice?

This thread is about killing somebody in a make believe accident. This is indeed heinous. The thread can also be relevant in other crimes involving somebody committing  crime cleverly. There is another aspect worth noticing. Even if murder is proved, there is no death sentence in most cases. In case of car accident also, there is not total immunity from jail. Only jail sentence may be for lesser period.  For me, going to jail even for one day would be stigma.     

If a person kills another by his car intentionally, it means he has some serious revenge with that person; or else he is a hitman paid by some one to kill that person. But if the lawyer is proficient to convince the judiciary with solid proof that it is an unintentional accident, the person shall be escaped from the charge of murder. Law demands solid proof.

Law is blind and at times its rules can be the greatest hindrance to justice, like in the case of Salman Khan where the loop holes helped him escape until now although there is proof and eye witness account etc etc . So, Justice system is not fool proof which emboldens criminally minded people to work on these loose ends when they plot something ! 

rambabu wrote:

You said "Intentionally"is there any proof, the perpetrator committed murder Intentionally ? Law is blind. It wants proof, a solid proof. Nothing works other than proof.

yes court proceeding wants proof. It is duty of investigation agencies to produce proof. In Salman Khan case police failed in producing proof. Although he had no intention to hit peoples but he was not in condition that he can drive. rough driving is also like intentionally.

 

anil wrote:

rambabu wrote:

You said "Intentionally"is there any proof, the perpetrator committed murder Intentionally ? Law is blind. It wants proof, a solid proof. Nothing works other than proof.

yes court proceeding wants proof. It is duty of investigation agencies to produce proof. In Salman Khan case police failed in producing proof. Although he had no intention to hit peoples but he was not in condition that he can drive. rough driving is also like intentionally.

 Yes there is solid proof in fact the guilty says he has done it but he will prove it legal if the time comes. 

This is a very interesting legal point. It all depends how the case is investigated. in case a clueful investigator covers all angles of the killing then it is possible to prove that it was homicide with intent, but yes, there is a chance tht a man can commit a premediated killing and get away with it is just a charge of culpible homicide not amounting to murder or as an accident.

In an accident usually unknown persons are involved. In a pre meditated murder, victim will be known to the murderer. However a supari killer will not be known to the victim. In case of doubt the victim's relations have to lodge an FIR expressing their concern. The police should normally investigate in the matter. But yes chances are murderer may go scot free if prosecution case is weak. More data needs to be provided.

One needs to build up a strong case with all the proofs and must be ready to foil the counter questions and proofs produced by the opponents in the court. To defend oneself, one has to be prepared as double edged weapon so that he or she does not get stuck in the middle and get entangled within his/her own trap.