But in far too many high-profile cases, it is this very procedure that is abused by methods far removed from convincing judicial arguments, thereby making the law look like, to quote a character in Oliver Twist, “a ass”. But in Dickensian India -where someone who could have easily stood in as the victim of Khan’s killer Land Cruiser on September 28, 2002, is today celebrating the movie star’s acquittal -the law is the only thing that everyone, from a powerful parliamentarian to a resident of a jhuggijhompri cluster, should be answering to. That, sadly , isn’t the case in the real world. This particular verdict makes anyone who should be fearful of the law be more fearful of not being well connected as insurance. The fact that the prosecution, the state of Maharashtra, failed to prove the charges “on all counts” makes incompetence and unwillingness equal suspects. The single witness who insisted that Khan was behind the wheel when the incident took place was not considered a “wholly reliable witness” on account of a legal technicality -as well as the fact that he had died eight years ago. The prosecution will appeal against the verdict. All one can do is hope that the holes that the state of Maharashtra inflicted on its own argument, can be repaired by proving something about the acquitted more convincing than his guilt not being proven “beyond reasonable doubt”. Otherwise, this will add to the string of incentives to prepare oneself to -proverbially , of course -get away with murder.