The presumption that the ‘accused is innocent until proved guilty’ is the culprit here. This is not only ridiculous but also an anathema. How can we prove that an accused is guilty? We need evidence. Where do we find evidence? We find circumstantial evidence; we also find evidence at the venue of the crime and of course, there are eyewitnesses. And where do we get the eyewitnesses? We get them from the vicinity where the crime is committed; the one who happens to witness or claims that he or she has seen the other commit the crime is the witness. And the statement of the witness, whether true or false or fabricated, is the key to the trial. The case is wound up once the accused is convicted.  At times, even after being convicted and jailed, the convicted is found innocent.

By the way, how many criminals leave behind evidence so the judiciary can convict them and punish them? Only a few do it. But a huge majority of the criminals are intelligent and farsighted enough to carry out crimes of the most heinous order after meticulous planning, to ensure they leave behind no evidence whatsoever.

What more the judiciary wants to conclude that Ajmal committed a crime not against just another human being but against the whole humanity? Why can’t it seal the case by declaring that the accused was caught committing the crime and so is guilty? Why do we need consuls and advocates in the name of a fair trail in the instant case? Is such a fair trial needed in the first place? What about his accomplices who were killed and thus eluded the so-called fair trial? The ones who commit crimes need to be punished according to the law, to ensure the well being of the world at large; criminals like Ajmal need to be eliminated without trial. Such enemies of humanity do not even deserve the benefit of doubt.

And if Ajmal is tried, is he going to be proved innocent or is he supposed to be punished according to the law? What is the purpose behind this judicial humbug? It is plain stupid and against everyone’s conscience. Our nation is used to such cases and can take no more of them, for sure.

For example, a rape victim’s statements are cross-examined to provide an opportunity to the rapist to plead not guilty. It happens in India alone. A pickpocket is tried to ensure that he never comes back to the mainstream. But a terrorist who hijacks the whole nation’s security is let loose on being threatened and blackmailed. And politicians with a criminal background are allowed to rule the nation. In such a scenario, can we expect anything different in Ajmal’s case? Is he much better than our so-called nation builders?  

Ajmal perhaps needs to be given a fair trial and if possible, we have to prove that he is innocent so more and more of Ajmals can hold more and more of people to ransom in more and more of heritage hotels and kill every human being they come across.   Running a nation is a tough job and in the process, some stray incidents like the ones involving Ajmal come along and they could be ignored in the name of collateral damage. Being big is strength indeed. Ajmal has a life ahead of him. He has a mission in his life. We should let him complete it, for, we Indians haven’t had enough and have not learnt our lessons. We need such doses periodically. Let there be more and more Ajmals?