That is why the fella had to face trial. That would be to
investigate whether the story made sense or whether he was being
set up. Then the judge would hear both sides of the story and make
an informed decision as to whether or not he is guilty.
Yes, which idiot would be dumb enough to throw away all that?
Unfortunately, we've all seen enough dumbasses to know that such
dumbassery is sadly quite common. Flip through the newspapers on
any given day, and you'll find more dumbasses.
Bottom line is: he went through the due process of justice, and
it found that he was a dumbass, and that he wasn't being set up.
The judge isn't perfect, but at least the judge knows more than you
do. End of story.
What we know we only see this much and I am not a lawyer. So how
we prove this kind of case? I know judge know more than me but this
is forum, purpose is we discuss.
First, judge derive only the female constable testimony. No
witness and No evidence. Her word against his word. Cannot dust for
finger prints on her breast. No CCTV to record him squeeze her jug.
No semen because no sexual penetration. Only touch.
If next time can prove by testimony then if somebody don't like
somebody, maybe can fabricate a molest case to remove person from
power or position of authority.
