Disclaimer in advance: The following plot is purely inferred from personal common sense, and the arguments are all from this film.
Inspired by a policeman's concern when setting Sunu's age: "If you make this child a minor, others are likely to put all the guilt on him and get away with it."
There are several obvious problems with the tone of the whole film. The first person to be caught is the disabled driver. After that, everyone confessed that the driver was insane and did the most cruel things, and they were all just robbery and assault. If it is true as they say, sin does not die. But in the end, the driver committed suicide in prison, fearing the crime, Sunu was imprisoned as a minor for three years, and everyone else was sentenced to death.
A film that emphasizes judicial justice and procedural justice from beginning to end, but the final result does not differentiate the sentencing according to the actual criminal behavior. I am always curious as to where it was omitted. Assuming that it is not simply to calm the anger of the people, then the fact is even more cruel - everyone participated in the murder, and the last version that came out was actually the first person who succeeded in committing suicide because of the fear of crime - that is, the driver On the body, after all, the dead can't speak.
The most contradictory point is in the middle of the third episode. When the 2nd and 3rd people were arrested, in order to find evidence, the police went to their house to search, and found that the mobile phone/purse and the female victim's intestines were buried in the sand in the hallway! ! ! I don't want to speculate on why criminals keep their bowels, anyway I think it's extremely perverted behavior, only a murderer can do it. Therefore, I don't believe how to describe how these two people found their conscience and wanted to commit suicide in fear of sin, and how cowardly they were.
In addition, the driver is disabled with one hand and an iron rod in the other. How can he stab so accurately in a shaking car? At least two people must help to succeed, and if the male victim does not resist, then all six people must be at least five people. All committed the last crime in the back of the carriage. Failure to prevent a murder is an accomplice.
In addition, there is another contradiction. When the male and female victims were thrown out of the car, they all said that they would drive back to kill them. According to the few confessions, they all said that the driver was going to run over them again. Stabbing the female victim to death should be the last step, so how could this driver stab people to death, throw people out of the car, and then drive to kill them again?
It is also mentioned in the play that the female victim has multiple bite marks all over her body, including more than a dozen on a single face, and these scumbags bit the cliff together.
To sum up, except for minors, the death penalty for all people is not to quell public anger, but indeed they deserve what they deserve. The whole play has repeatedly described how the criminal suspects other than the driver are cowardly and afraid of crime, and they also pave the way for the arrogance of the driver, giving people the wrong impression that a demon is coercing a bunch of brain-dead people. In my opinion, it's just a bunch of scumbags who bully the soft and fear the hard. The driver died first, so it was all pushed to him. The more I thought about it, the more disgusting I felt.
View more about Delhi Crime reviews
