MovieChat Forums > Pink (2016) Discussion > It was a good film, but....

It was a good film, but....

posted 8 years ago by cool_jojo_007
10 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand one thing. It was proven that whether you take money or you don't, you can't force yourself on another person...but how and where was it proven that Taapsi pannu's character was molested ?

I mean yes, we saw it happen in the movie but in the court, neither any evidence of this horrific incident happening came up, nor it was proven. So the other boys were convicted on what basis ? Can anybody explain....may be I missed something.

~ Well, if this is it, old boy, I hope you don't mind if I go out speaking the King's ~

[–] caustic576 8 years ago

Rajveer's outburst in the court that women of loose character have to be penalized was in line Tapsee's allegation that he forced himself on her.

[–] kapildedha 8 years ago

Sir did u watch the seen where accused Rajbir admits and arguing with deepak sehgal (Big B) and indicated that this kind of girls should be molested. There was no need of any proof where Rajbir's intention clarified what really happened what was his intention. And sir judges are human being not machinery they have own discretion power

[–] cool_jojo_007 8 years ago

His intention was clear when he let everyone know what an orthodox person he was. But my friend the court of law works with facts and proofs, not intentions.

There was no proof presented in the court that those 4 molested her character. So how were Rajbir's friends arrested on the basis of just an allegation ?

~ Well, if this is it, old boy, I hope you don't mind if I go out speaking the King's ~

[–] ishanmishra2001 8 years ago

There are many cases when innocent people are sentence on the basis of argument..however already Tapsee and her friends stated that they were molested..And Rajveer outburst proves that either..

[–] moviesxxx 8 years ago

What was the word that Rajveer used to describe the girls, stupid censor board muted it! That word that he called them was supposed to have a big impact but it didn't have same effect when muted.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cool_jojo_007 8 years ago

Nobody's outburst can prove anything unless it is a confession. This is a court of law.

~ Well, if this is it, old boy, I hope you don't mind if I go out speaking the King's ~

[–] vaibhavsram1989 8 years ago

Good point. I have exactly the same doubt.

[–] himthegr8423 8 years ago

Yes the case took a drastic turn after that. There had to be another case on the SHO or a review(from a review board) atleast after that. There was seemingly no way to deny that allegation. Even traffic cameras would have been checked and it was a dead end for her. Even if footage would have been tampered or played on a loop, suspicion would have been clear. It was almost certain that she took the bribe.

[–] shirifrnz 8 years ago

Can anybody explain....may be I missed something.

No, you didn't. The film makers took liberty here and did this on purpose to make the ending more satisfactory. It is mentioned in the trivia section that originally the ending was supposed to show that Rajveer and his friends got acquitted. But we have enough of that happening around us on a daily basis. And this was not a courtroom drama in the first place. The point that the movie tries to make, according to me, is that a woman's NO means NO, no matter the relation you share with her.
So, I feel we can let go of all the loopholes that would have resulted in the acquittal of Rajveer and friends in the actual proceedings of a courtroom. In fact the judge too mentioned that an exception is being made and a precedent is being set.