The truth is the version of events that the most number of people believe. There's no such thing as a Satyagraha in criminal law. It's about presenting the version that is more convincing. Or that at least punches enough holes in your opponents paradigm.
Today, Peter's version of the truth went forward. Jailed by the CBI for lying to his son by suggesting a dead Sheena Bora was in the United States. He's once again blamed Indrani. "She took my phone and impersonated me," Peter told the investigators. And the man who nailed him, now backs him, Rahul Mukherjea insisting that his dad's innocent.
So the questions are these: Would it be unreasonable to think that a wife would have the opportunity and ability to take one's phone, know one's password, and shoot off a few messages that suit her kniving purpose? Or would that be inconcievable? Would a son who depends upon his father to support him now rat him out to and paint him with the same brush as the step-mother who in his thoughts killed his fiancee and lover? Or would a Rahul Mukherjea shun the tentacles of filiality and go. If Sheena's dead, Indrani and Peter are in jail. I might just inherit it all? Questions that are key to this case unfortunately as convulated as anything Erwin Schrodinger could come up with.