The correct version of the Evidence for relationship proof

argument.

By Faisal Rahman

Abstract :

This paper is to show that the correct explanation for the evidence for

relationship argument.

The first thing is ,who will proof ? the person who accuses . Then

Evidence is also a suspect it has to be showed that the Evidence is

telling the truth. then it has to be shown that in the case husband and

wife no evidence is required.

And finally relation proof is needed in the case of incest ,that is a

relationship crime.

Natural husband and wife is not a relationship crime.

Introduction : Why this essay ?

Recently I have come to know a cruel ,miss interpreted , version of

the relationship evidence.

which is incorrect ; innocent until proven guilty not the other way

round. You can not accuse any one with out proof . guilt has to be

proven ; not innocence.

we have to understand the following things to understand this

process.,

a. Burden Proof

b. Law of evidence

c. Criminal procedure.

The Burden of proof :

On whom the burden of proof lies ? This is what has to be

understood first ; "He who makes the assumption provides the

evidence."

" If I say that Mr .X have committed a rape " --- I have to provide

evidence that Mr.X committed a rape. Until proven guilty , Mr.X is

innocent .

I am in dock in the court of law taking the solemn oath to tell the

truth nothing but whole truth.

Then You cannot say that I am lying under oath , you have to provide

evidence that I am telling a lie. So the burden of prove is on the

shoulder of the accuser .

Take an example from physics.

The scientist who is assuming , is confined inside a box , he is asking

"Is it gravity or is it acceleration ? " So it is him who has to provide

proof whether it is gravity or whether it is acceleration ?" Similarly ,

you are confined inside a box , you don 't know . you are assuming

whether this couple is husband & wife or brother & sister. You have

to provide evidence not them.In this case ,the couple has same

father.

If you cannot prove it they are innocent.

Law of Evidence: At First it has to be proved that any Evidence is

required here , from our daily life experience,we know that , evidence

can not be found in every case.

For example , 1) there are many Rape cases where it cannot be

proved that the girl is raped

but no body says that the girl is lying , everybody says the girl is raped

but it couldn't be proved in the court of law.

2) There are lot of fraud marriages that can not be proved in the

court of law.

But does any body says that girl is lying ? No every body says the girl

is divorced but it could not be proved in the Court of law.

So we can see that Evidence can not be found in every situation.,that

is the reality.

Suppose, a situation where an old man was walking on the street ,

while he saw a boy leaping and trying for the doorbell; because he

was short he was failing to reach for the bell , So the old man felt

kindness for this boy and went up to the door and rang the bell on

behalf of him.

just the moment he rang the bell the boy said "run ,run " and started

to runaway

meanwhile the owner of the house came out and asked why he rang

the bell.

Now if any body says " it is seen that the old man was pressing the

bell, finger printing of the old man was found on the bell , there fore,

the old man is guilty."

Will this statement be correct ? NO ! from this simple example , we

know that evidence is not required every where.

Law of Evidence

is Evidence it self is a suspect ; evidence tells lies

Evidence =suspect

Evidence itself is a suspect ;

Evidence can not be accepted without doubt . Evidence has to

be questioned . Is Evidence telling the truth or lying ?

Evidence can lead to wrong conclusion ; so we have to be

careful about asking for evidence.

Evidence can not be found ; in every case we have to ask :

a) Is evidence required in this situation ?

b) How much ?

c) Is evidence telling the truth ?

If it is proved that evidence is not required here Evidence can not be

demanded .

You can not demand proof for what is cannot be proven..

now come to our situation. is husband wife relationship demand a

evidence ? answer is No!.

Logic of theology :

In far distant lands where marriage ceremonies are done inside

mosques ;where there occurs no written contract If any body goes

there and says this couple is not husband and wife ,because there is no

evidence. will this statement be true?No ! because that couple is

husband and wife in the eye of the divine law. whether there is

evidence or no evidence.

Logic of space :

Suppose there is a couple in a deserted island ;in the middle of an

ocean will not that couple be able to become husband and wife ? yes .!

of course !

They can become husband and wife naturally no Evidence is needed

here..

Logic of Time:

Suppose H G Wells goes to far back in 13th century , Rajasthan ,

India . And demands Rana Ratan Sen and Padmini , to show evidence

that are they are husband and wife. Will this statement be valid?No !

because there was no system for marriage registrations in those days.

So from our logic of Divinity , space and time we can see that a

marital relationship requires no evidence.Therefore , Evidence cannot

be demanded to prove a marriage.

Criminal Procedure:The basic criminal procedure is " innocent until

proven guilty,not the other way round ". you can not convict any one

as guilty then tell him to prove himself innocent . The Guilt has to be

proven not the innocence"

The Relationship crime : When the relationship is a crime ?

Why relationship proof is needed ?

Natural relationship is not a crime .Incest is a crime. Relationship

proof is needed only in the case of incest.

Once upon a time An investigator Mr. Holmes saw a couple who call

themselves husband and wife but there is a reasonable doubt , this

couple has identical face. Identical face is an evidence for genetic

relationship.

So our investigator ask whether this couple is genuine Husband &

wife or Brother & sister?

that is why the evidence for relationship is required.

Mr.Holmes has to show that the father of the husband and the father

of the wife , is one and the same Mr. Zingo.

that is :

Father of husband = Father of wife

thus , Husband + Wife = brother + Sister.

therefore , Sexual relationship = Incest.

This is why evidence of relationship was needed only to prove Incest

Prostitution is not a relationship crime , because Prostitutes'

client, can become their husband.

Husband + wife = prostitute + Client.

This equation is not false.

Therefore Relationship evidence is not applicable, to prove that the

couple is client and prostitute.

Prostitution is the business or practice of engaging in sexual activity in

exchange for payment[either as money, goods, services, or some other

benefit agreed upon by the transacting parties. Prostitution is

sometimes described as commercial sex or hooking. ( Wikipedia)

In the case of prostitution relationship evidence is not required ; here

business transaction evidence is required . If you want to prove

prostitution you have to show that some

illegal business transaction has occurred

Conclusion

Therefore , from our argument we can see that from logic of space ,

logic of time , logic of divinity a marital relationship demands no

evidence.. If you ask a hydrogen atom Where is your credentials to

meet with the Oxygen atom. The hydrogen atom will say " I require no

Credentials to meet with the oxygen atom.

It is my natural right to meet with Oxygen , I need no credentials "

It is like the situation in Abbot's The Flat Lander ; where a two

dimensional organism goes to three dimensional world ; when he

comes back to the two dimensional world and tell s his fellows about

his experience they don't believe him calls him a liar. But is this 2

dimensional organism who was called Mr. Square is actually a liar ?

No ! in this situation oral testimony is the direct evidence.

Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was created

by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things

that are visible.”

God created the universe with out any proof ; If we ask you to prove

that the God created the world , will you be able to prove that ? No .

Because it is not provable . We believe in God with out any evidence .

Similarly A man and A woman can be husband wife without any

evidence .

now if any body says a couple needs credentials to prove their

marriage. that is a crime ,that is Blasphemy ! Breaking the law of God..

References : The skeletal version of the argument I heard from

Barrister (Late) Gazi Shamsur Rahman, Esqr ; via television in a night

of year 1994 or5 , In the BTV program Udjiban .