Siya Goyal case: Public opinion vs legal proof

[Anand]

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/siya-goyal-ketan-agarwal-chetan-chaudhary-lohagad-fort-video-siya-goyals-cafe-date-with-lover-hours-before-murdering-fiance-11685947/amp/1

Personally, from everything reported so far, I think Siya is guilty and I see why many others think the same. But our personal belief isn't evidence, and that's exactly why we have a justice system. A criminal court can't convict someone just because "everyone knows" or because things look suspicious. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with credible, admissible evidence.

For example, an alleged affair might give a possible motive, but motive alone doesn't prove a murder conspiracy. Similarly, if the accused met at a coffee shop before the incident, the court will ask: *What evidence shows they discussed a murder plan?* Was there a witness who overheard? An audio clip? Texts? Emails? Any other proof of a criminal agreement?

Suspicion, however strong, isn't proof. Courts need evidence, not assumptions. If the police have solid forensic evidence, digital records, witness testimony, or other admissible proof that shows planning and participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the case is strong. If they don't, getting a conviction becomes a lot harder no matter what the public thinks. And the only way to claim justice would be to admit guilt without legitimate evidence. From what I see, the police still don't have strong evidence to prove her guilt. There's no single solid piece of evidence, and if anyone claims otherwise, they need a credible source.

[Kamal]

"100 doshi chhoot jaye, par do nirdosh ko fasi na ho" - that's the idea behind it. But in practice it often works against law and order.